Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
• Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policy; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies supporting their preferred outcome.

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. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Category:People with acquired citizenship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The parent (container) category and multiple subcategories for individual countries were merged with Category:Naturalized citizens by country. There are several ways to acquire citizenship of a country other than "naturalization", the precise definition of which varies by country but generally includes a requirement that the person is normally resident and working in the country, and may involve some kind of cultural knowledge test. Depending on local laws there are other ways to acquire citizenship of a country, for example by ancestry, or by investment, or even by outright bribery. Many have acquired Maltese citizenship by investment, for example, but that doesn't make them naturalized Maltese. This merge was ill thought out, had minimal participation, and has had many unforeseen consequences. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Swift Retort (short film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Received a challenge to a G4-based speedy deletion basically claiming that the new article had been created with permission. The article Operation Swift Retort (film) was deleted in 2019 following an AFD discussion. Another article on the same subject was created in 2021, and I accepted the speedy deletion request in 2024 since I found the subject matter, and sourcing too be much the much the same, even though the prose was different. Submitting for review whether my application of G4 was appropriate, and as always with reviews on my deletions, I will take a neutral stance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer my perspective on this matter. This film is not self-promotional or fake; it is officially associated with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The film's production was authorized by the PAF, as reported by Gulf News and other news outlets.[1]

The film has been broadcast on several television channels:

92 News (2020)

Samaa TV (2022)

ARY News (2023)

Channel 24 (2024)

There are numerous mentions of the film and the filmmaker in 17 Urdu newspapers (Roznama 92 News, Dunya News, Express, etc.)[2][3] Also Urdu news outlets (Daily Pakistan, Urdu Point, etc.)https://www.roznama92news.com/efrontend/web/index.php/?station_id=1&page_id=6&is_common=&xdate=2023-10-21. The film's notability is further evidenced by coverage in English-language sources:

Geo News[4]

Gulf News[5]

The News International[6]

The News International (Newspaper and In-step magazine)[7]

Pakistan Observer[8]

Dunya News[9]

These sources are not paid endorsements and do not include disclaimers. These are primary and I can provide 10 more references that are secondary.

In 2020, three editors suggested that while the film may not warrant its own Wikipedia page, it should be mentioned on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page. Consequently, a brief, referenced description of the film was added. However, this edit was reversed by Saqib in 2024 approx after 5 years, who deemed it promotional and removed the film's name without providing a clear reason. I have brought this to the attention of an administrator, along with evidence of the film's prior inclusion on the page.

I question how an edit made in 2020 could suddenly be considered promotional in 2024, especially when multiple editors were aware of the film's presence and raised no concerns. It appears that Saqib may have a bias against content related to the armed forces.

I believe administrators should determine whether the film deserves its own page. If not, I urge them to revert Saqib's edit and reinstate the brief description of Operation Swift Retort on the "2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes" page, as it was originally added in 2020. The film is notable, official, and the only animated film produced in Pakistan in 2019. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--182.190.223.129 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Requesting temp undeletion of both the (film) and (short film) titles. Public log shows creation in May 2023 and deletion in July 2024. I find it difficult, though not impossible, to believe that an article would stand and presumably be edited for over a year and still be subject to G4. Frank Anchor 13:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the pages are restored at Operation Swift Retort (film) (for the original version deleted in 2019), and Operation Swift Retort (short film) (for the version under discussion here). Access the page history for the contents. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Frank Anchor 16:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The version deleted at afd (since there's been g4s at the (film) title too) is here. —Cryptic 18:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Frank Anchor please add some Urdu references which are available in 2023 and not in 2020. Please also check 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes section where this film has mentioned there as per the 3 editors who were agreed earlier on that a section should be there so it would be great if the section has been restore too.

  Geo News, Dunya News, Gulf News are enough to show the notability while in extra it has 92 News, Daily Pakistan, UK Film review, Urdu Point, The News International and others. 182.190.223.129 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled that the creator of this short films DJ Kamal Mustafa made numerous physical threats off-wiki, yet the promotional/military propaganda pages are restored. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why everyone has a problem with you or you are doing something wrong @Saqib? sort your personal things out of the box and not on Wikipedia. You have issue every other editors, dare to explain why did you removed the information from 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes? You said it was promo so after 4 years you woke up and listened the order of sock-puppet, isn't it? 3 editors were agreed to add short information of Operation Swift Retort on 2019 Jammu & Kashmir Airstrikes page in 2020 but you removed it in 2024 just because you have some personal problem against Mustafa, does this make any sense to you?

5 references showed enough notability for Op Swift Retort and Unicorn a user has categorically stated 4 years back that Geo News, The News International, Gulf News showing enough notability of film. Now, the film has 4 mentions in urdu language but you ignored everything and removed the name of Mustafa from all the Wikipedia, why? personal issue?

I have left here 4-5 references, let me know doesn't this make enough evidence about the film? 182.190.223.129 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Array chicha, just stick on the point and stop complaining to admins. You owe an answer that why you have removed the information only of Mustafa and that too in mass number? Relax, physical threats? go to the nearest local police station or FIA office with all the evidence, okay? Niaz bibi seems like haven't thought you anything that how to behave on public forum. 24 hours you are only active on Wikipedia just to think how to oppose an opposition.

Well anyways, admins are watching and you must have to given an answer :)

182.190.223.70 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Firstly, if this SPI report confirms, the master account is Dj1kamal which was blocked in 2015, (see this) making these two creations (Operation Swift Retort (film) and Operation Swift Retort (short film)) violations under G5. However, if we disregard this aspect, this is an advertisement and PROMO article created by a blocked @Devoter and Memon KutianaWala, to boost the profile of DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film. Upon reviewing the sources cited on this article, much of the coverage either falls within the WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or consists of routine/ROTM coverage lacking independent, in-depth/significant coverage. Given that DJ Kamal Mustafa, the director/producer/writer of this short film, is also a journalist, he has been successful in garnering some press coverage for his short movie, however, the coverage still falls short of meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:SIGCOV. An article on same topic was created under different titles such as Operation Swift Retort (film), Operation Swift Retort (short film), Operation Swift Retort (2019 Film) and finally deleted in 2019 via AFD with a clear consensus in favor of deletion. It appears most of the references currently being cited in this article were also debated in the previous AFD and none of them could satisfy the GNG. Yet they're shamelessly promoting this and their other works on pages like this, this and this.
Fwiw, these articles has seen significant editing activity by blocked socks, suggesting it was in clear violation of WP:TOU and and there was also repeated attempts to create a BLP on DJ Kamal Mustafa which was also deleted via AfDs here, here, here as well here. And I'm unsure what's this about? Furthermore, DJ Kamal has sent me multiple off-wiki physical and legal threats, with evidence available upon request via email.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 as the two versions are not sufficiently identical (There is at least one reference in the new version that postdates the version deleted at AFD). However, I would support speedy deletion as G5 as the article creator and most significant contributors are blocked socks. No objection to any good-faith attempt to recreate this page, though I am not convinced this DRV was made in good faith. Frank Anchor 18:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Segun Toyin Dawodu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted after the individual who requested the deletion mutilated the page by removing key links and information on the notability of the subject and in the process skewing the page to look bad.

The page was created around 2008 because of the notability of the individual in many respects including:- 1. Earliest Nigerian blogger since 1997 and created the website Dawodu.com. There are more than 50 Wikipedia articles that reference this website to show its significance in contributing to discussion on Nigeria’s socio-economic, political and historical issues. 2. He was one of the pioneer editors of the Knowledge Now (https://now.aapmr.org), a repository of articles in physical medicine and rehabilitation in the world hosted by the American Academy of Physical Medicine (AAPMR)and also pioneer author of articles on this platform. Inquiries can be made to AAPMR through their website AAPMR.org. 3. He was one of the pioneer authors of various articles on Emedicine that later became part of MEDSCAPE (MEDSCAPE.com) which is the number one website of medical articles in the world and that was as far back as 1998. His article on spinal cord injury and causa equina on MEDSCAPE was a reference for Emergency Room doctors in managing such conditions.

Some of these were fully discussed in the past at a previous attempt to delete the site.

The question that the editor that requested deletion needs to answer is why did he delete relevant references and mitigated the article before requesting the deletion of the article. One can see this as evidence of possible malice.

I do hope that this will be reviewed as soon as possible and allow the discussion to continue for another week to enable more people participate. Attempts were made by me behind the scene to ensure that the person that requested deletion will consider the above and withdraw the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckanopueme (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If "and candidate for Masters in Global Healthcare Leadership from University of Oxford Reuben College, Oxford" is such a critical part of the article so as to constitute "key links and information" and removing it is "mutilat[ion]" and "skews the page to look bad", then this never should have lasted this long. Endorse. —Cryptic 13:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  More than that was deleted. In the process of the deletion, references were mismatched to create a false narrative. May be an error on his part or may be with some intent. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undelete please so us non-admins can examine the edit history. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks and for all facts to be considered. I think his website created in 1998 after an initial bog from 1997 has contributed to knowledge even within Wikipedia. The website at a point in time was the main text and source of information for research in Nigerian universities and that is how he became known to some of us journalists and he became an hero at a time when such Information was not easily accessible elsewhere. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently the history is still at the page, so here's a link to the article. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for information by someone who was involved in the AfD: all the person who nominated for AfD did to the article was a) some recategorizing b) fixing some references c) the removal mentioned above. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.

  Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.

  1. https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=Segun%20dawodu

  Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

  2. https://now.aapmr.org/?s=Dawodu

  Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

  3. https://www.whois.com/whois/dawodu.com

  WHOOS data on domain names

  4. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/reubenites-inaugural-part-time-msc-global-healthcare-leadership-visit-college

  Article from Reuben College, University of London.

  The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.

  5. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/segun-dawodu

  His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.

  I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.

  Thanks.

  Chike Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “Fixing” the references was done with mismatch. That created a false narrative.

  Also a comment by another that because there were discussions in the past should not be relevant but past discussions are relevant if the issue discussed previously are being raised again especially on notability because the reference point was events from 1997 to 2009 when things done by the subject of the article were pioneering from the links posted so far. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear as day endorse for me, consensus from the debate is clear and the above nomination rationale is lacking substance. The references to debates from over a decade ago as a reason to overturn is wildly irrelevant. None of the three numbered points in this debate offer any kind of reasonable argument of notability, something consensus at the AfD agrees with. The description of the editing behaviours at the article is erroneous to the point of being misleading. Daniel (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Response’’’

Kindly review the Links below to buttress some of I have stated on nobility of the subject of this articles.

Also a search through Wikipedia will point to many articles that referenced the Dawodu.com website making it a sources of resources on Wikipedia (that confers advantage to Wikipedia). It is also a good idea to look at time frame ie since 1997 as most of things pioneered then may look normal now but not on 1997 to 2009 when the article was first created.

1. https://search.medscape.com/search/?q=Segun%20dawodu

Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

2. https://now.aapmr.org/?s=Dawodu

Articles that were pioneer articles written by him

3. https://www.whois.com/whois/dawodu.com

WHOOS data on domain names

4. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/reubenites-inaugural-part-time-msc-global-healthcare-leadership-visit-college

Article from Reuben College, University of London.

The request or for deletion took a step to delete all association to Oxford in the article before mutilating references. This gives a clue of this is a coordinated effort by some individuals from Oxford.

5. https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/segun-dawodu

His connection to PHC at Oxford University with his Reuben college email.

I do hope all these will be taken into consideration and more editors can see the facts for further discussions as a week did not give enough notice to get more people to discuss this.

Thanks.

Chike

———————————————————————-

I went through some of the comments during deletion which some others who may be interested did not have a chance to review. Some of those comments have been addressed in my earlier postings. One of the comments was on fellowship being solely on paying membership fee which is not true.

1. https://www.aapmr.org/members-publications/membership/join-the-academy/member-applications

To be a fellow of AAPMR (FAAPMR), the individual needs to be board certified in physical medicine and rehabilitation ie passed the specialty board examination first.

2. https://www.aanem.org/membership/join-renew/membership-eligibility-and-dues/categories-of-membership

A fellow of American Academy of Neuroelectrodiagnostic Medicine is required to also pass the board examination before being co sidères as FAANEM. The above are not different from the FRCS and FRCP in the UK.

3. https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/become-a-member/bcs-fellowship/bcs-fellowship-criteria/

The above lists very stringent criteria to become a fellow of the British Computer Society (FBCS) which is the highest level of membership in any IT field in the entire world. Becoming a fellow is not a mere payment of membership fee

4. https://www.rcsed.ac.uk/membership-information/member-search

Membership of the Royal College of Aurgeons of Edinburgh requires passing a rigorous examination.

The above in addition for he fact that the subject is one of two people in the world who are physicians, attorneys and clinical Informaticians at intersection of medicine, law and IT points to his notability and the reason why I created the stub for him.

As an editor, I don't think he needs Wikipedia to tout who he is as his presence in the World Wide Web is notable on many other platforms especially for his work on his blog(Dawodu.com), on MEDSCAPE and on AAPMR's Knowledge Now, the later two being the global leader on articles in medicine and in rehabilitation medicine respectively.

I think all these facts point on a need for an extensive review and also ensuring that the act of defacing a stub to hide nobility of the person in the article and then ask for deletion should never be allowed or tolerated. This act beings very one including Wikipedia into disrepute.

Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse With one exception, Wikipedia is not about what you have accomplished, but instead what others have written about you. The exception is whether you're in academics, which is not one I particularly agree with. The discussion was conducted and closed correctly, removing references before an AfD looks bad but there wasn't any malice there if you look closely (de-duplicated a link and removed a dead link which appeared to be substantially the same as the other articles), and a quick review shows there weren't any clearly overlooked sources or misapplication of WP:NPROF. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made reference below to work that the subject did as an early pioneer at MEDSCAPE and Knowledge now. These are academic work. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sounds like he's had a reasonably good and distinguished career. Don't see how he remotely meets notability guidelines, and the appellant clearly confuses accomplishments with notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the notability guidelines are reviewed, at least 4 were met if not more. We can discuss the notability guidelines in this regard.

  This includes the influence of Dawodu.com that he established which has Ben referred to on many platforms including Wikipedia.

  This fact has been well co weed on other social blogs where the site had significant influence.

  There are other grounds on notability including being part of pioneering work at Medscape and Knowledge that have been stated previously.

  The reference to other achievements were in response to previous comments like fellowship being paid for, etc and basically to debunk the premise on which those statements were stated.

  these are facts that should be viewed objectively in this regard and the site should be restored without hesitation. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, you need to read WP:BLUDGEON and understand your replies are not helping. You've got multiple editors chiming in who make a habit of dispassionately reviewing deletion decisions in which none of us were involved. Repeating the same stuff to each one of us isn't going to sway anyone. Jclemens (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Calm down and no need for your reaction. All I am doing is debunking some statements made falsely to justify deletion and pointing to the existence of notability for this subject.

  I will advise against your attempts to crowd-pulling by stating that everyone is against restoration and focus on replying to my response.

  Your reply is sad because you are basically stating that you and some others have made up your mind without listening to views that debunked your wrong premises.

  let me make it clear that this is a critical step being taken to see how sincere this platform is in adjudicating this type of issues The subject of this article does not need to be listed on Wikipedia as he is listed on many other platforms. His presence on Wikipedia is solid because there are many articles referencing his website. That alone is the irony of notability being defined to fit whatever purpose.

  i do hope the administrators will look deeply into this and apply the notability policy as it is defined and not just mere views or opinion of people who have their own reasons for whatever actions they are taking.

  The Wikipedia notability guidelines should be followed line by line to define final decision.

  As stated and for emphasis, his website was the earliest blogging on Nigeria and still a source of research on Nigeria’s socio-political, economic and historical issues, part of pioneer authors on internet publishing of medical articles with MEDSCAPE and Knowlesge Now with his articles referenced globally. What more notable than that?

  This is why I am urging the senior administrators to look at the notability guidelines line by line in making their final decision. I am not crowdsourcing or crowd-pulling for editors to come in and join the discussion because the issue is very clear in an unbiased mind. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Telling a vastly-experienced editor (and DRV participant) that they are wrong about bludgeoning, by continuing to bludgeon the discussion, is a stunning demonstration of lack of self-awareness. Quite frankly, you are doing more harm than good to your own cause by writing extended, rambling missives like the above examples. Daniel (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your assertion of “vastly-experienced” is based on what? There are people who have vast experience in editing in other spheres that we need to focus on the issue and be less personal.

  My take on this remains emphasised that the notability guideline needs to be followed. I am not doing this to do anything other than emphasize the key points even if it has to be done repeatedly

  Remember that your premise for deletion and other excuses have been debunked and all I am hearing is more of personal attack on me. Let us focus on key issues of notability guidelines. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you do not accept the statement that Jclemens is vastly experienced, then the rest of your arguments will fail on account of having absolutely no functional judgement whatsoever. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We are now turning into insults. Very interesting bunch. Again, focus on the issue paramount to the discussion which is on notability. I can get the drift that you guys have nothing more to offer on notability and just hanging on to what was decided likely based on bias and prejudice. This makes the entire saga very sad on those editing for Wikipedia. I am here and learning. As a journalist, this is a great experience to write about later using this as a case study. Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't normally file an ANI on you for this, but you've been pushing this one article for 15 years... so I did. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair, this is a free world and not exclusively Wikipedia. The need to defend what is obviously injustice is what I have done.

  The premise for you asking for deletion has been debunked and sad that you next step is being personal and that is telling Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you the article subject? You uploaded the photo in 2012, which appears to be a selfie, and called it your own work. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now, you are clinging to straw. And looking for little reasons to win an argument and again running from the core issues. I solicited for information from independent sources and the initial picture posted was rejected because it came from a k own site that led me to use the one that was sent to me. As a journalist, I have been using the website Dawodu.com for years to do my research on Nigeria and reason for my interest in the subject. On your question, the answer is obvious and I am not going to even waste my time on the ridiculous question. Waiting for your ANI. Hopefully this discussion stays on record to show how things are handled in Wikipedia. Running away for the core discussion on issues should not lead to personal attack except of afraid of the truth being told exposed. Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, that's NOT your own work, and you uploaded it and falsely claimed the authority to license it for free worldwide use? I mean, if we ask that Commons delete it as fraudulently licensed, it will disappear from all of your... err, Segun's Wikipedia pages in other languages, too. Your call. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you understand by own work. You need to get a good hand on what means. This explains why some are not showing I derata di g of the notability guidelines. So we have you as a “vastly experienced “ editor, running around meaning of notability and now also running around meaning of “own work”!! And on top you threatening and trying to shut up others with ANI. That is telling and very sad.

  Again, let us focus on discussing notability guidelines as you sound scared of that and bring other extraneous issues into this Very sad but very interesting to see the huddle at the back end of Wikipedia. Not encouraging and those higher in the hierarchy should as a matter of urgency look into this. This is why I am here engaging in this discussion ie to see the underbelly and behaviour pattern in decision making of allowing or not allowing certain articles and whether bias or prejudice is part of the dealings. Very sad indeed. Still waiting for your threat of ANI sir. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because DRV is not AFD round 2, and we are not being asked whether , in our opinions, the subject passes general notability or academic notability. Answering that question would require detailed review. I haven't done that detailed review because I am not required to do that detailed review for this purpose. We are being asked whether the closer assessed consensus correctly. That's an easy question. The closer evaluated consensus correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The request was AfD and routed to the closer for that purpose. Kindly address the issue of notability. We all need to be careful trying to dodge this key question because it tells on what Wikipedia is all about by some of the editors. Which is why O think this issue needs to be looked into at a much higher level and also reason why I have provided a lot of information repeatedly on this. Thanks. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ckanopueme, I think you misunderstand the purpose of DRV. It's not for arguing about notability but assessing whether or not this AFD was closed correctly. That's why Robert says that DRV is not AFD round 2. More importantly, your attempts to argue for this article have not been persuasive so it's time to take another approach rather than arguing with everyone you disagree with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A persuasive argument will be to counter the opposing argument. You guys came up with frivolous unsubstantiated reasons for lack of notability, I spent time debunking those reasons and then someone threatened ANI and others like you now bringing new reasons to stop the discussion without debunking my own argument. That is the persuasive aspect. I think it is disgraceful seeing the way things have been conducted so far with obvious bias and prejudice glaring. As stated prior, it is a shame that everyone of us in Wikipedia should bear and we need to go deep into our soul and ask on humans can go to this extent. Again, the outcome is less of concern but rather focused on proving that the subject of the article met all my ability guidelines and I hope the higher hierarchy of Wikipedia will look into this. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: With the other non-SPAs who've commented, I agree that the purpose of DRV is not to relitigate the AFD, but to determine whether the close was properly done. It was. It is also not to cast aspersions at fellow editors. I understand that Ckanopueme's near-sole purpose on Wikipedia over the course of fifteen years is to promote this obscure figure -- it's been years since they've made a single edit for any other reason -- but they would be better served by learning how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 05:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No aspersions on fellow editors while on the other hand, reasons for lack of notability have not been properly stated while I have been threatened and insulted by others. Read the threads and judge by yourself. I can sense that few of you are crowding for this purpose. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You really do seem to have a problem with understanding that issues of notability are not within the purview of DRV, no matter how many editors tell this to you. We do not have to state that to your satisfaction. We do not need you to approve to endorse the close. Do you get any impression that repeatedly demanding we read threads when you show no signs of paying heed to our advice is getting you anywhere? Ravenswing 15:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but it looks like we need to Relist the article. The AfD nomination was not legit it first place, it looks like.

Because, the nominator did remove some refs (see here)-- not any material, just the ref, which generally would only be done if the source is unreliable or skeevy -- right before nominating. But the refs were to Legit.ng, which looks, well, legit, and does have an article here here which says that in 2018 it was the 7th most visited website in Nigeria (which is one of the most populous countries in the world), so it's not chopped liver. And it looks serious to me. And there's nothing in its article that says it's been called out for being biased or sloppy. And one to mynigeria.com, which doesn't have an article here and is more downscale, but is clearly a professional-looking real news operation and not somebody's blog or something; they say they make original content. So I don't know why they were deleted. There's not much in the way of edit summaries, but one says "remove dead link" but the removed link is not dead. And is a link to a reasonably meaty biographical article on the subject in the 7th most visited website in Nigeria... this puzzles me.

If the refs were deleted as part of a deletion of the ref'd material because the material was too trivial or too biased or something, that might be different. But they weren't. Without knowing more, it looks like the edits did not improve the article, which basically renders the subsequent deletion nomination illegitimate IMO. We would not want that to become a general thing, so why make an exception here. Unless there's something I'm missing this is a trout for User:Uhooep; I'm assuming all this was done in perfect good faith, but it's an own goal, and we need to relist the article.

(If, on the merits, the article has no legitimate reason to exist and will surely be deleted in an new AfD, I suppose I could be like ennnh whatever. But, tho I didn't drill a lot, and there is plenty of fluff, but if it is true that he is really the founder of dawodu.com well, dawodu.com looks to be a serious newspaper, so that right there along with the biography at legit.com looks to be the beginning of a place to start building a legit article of a couple-few paragraphs. (This might require User:Ckanopueme to be topic-banned from the article to prevent future re-bloating, and just do that if you want to.))

It's not a popularity contest, or about which editors we do or don't care for, or who does or doesn't talk too much. It's about whether the edits the nominator made right before the nomination corrupted the nomination (by mistake I assume, but motive doesn't matter). Looks like it to me. Herostratus (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed missing something. Version before, version after. It's true that the (single) legit.ng article is cited three times in the before version, and twice in the after; but the first two of those citations were right next to each other referencing the first sentence, and so it was proper to combine them.

The mynigeria link 404s, and was never archived; that's the one that was removed as dead. It had the exact same title as the legit.ng article, besides, which doesn't inspire much confidence. In either source. —Cryptic 11:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic:OMG you're right. I didn't see that. OMG I'm so sorry. I just looked at the highlit text. Very poor of me. Nevermind me. Herostratus (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is erroneous as those links are from other bloggers in the Nigerian blogosphere who are aware of the pioneering contribution of the article subject. When you remove such links it shows deliberate attempt to belittle the subject. It looks like a group of people constituting themselves into a Mafia gang and promoting bias and prejudice. This needs to be looked into and stopped. Isn’t it sad that no one is talking about the notability guideline anymore but more on extraneous issues.

Again, the subject has met the notability guidelines over and above and that article should be relisted immediately otherwise it becomes victory to those showing bias and prejudice Thanks Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These other editors are making it a popularity contest and probably pals as their approach is not to focus on the issue but attack the messager with additional threats of ANI.

You have articulated better than I did the removal of references pointing to notability prior to request for deletion This is ground for that editor to be sanctioned and for sake of justice that the article be fully restored. It is a very shameful thing that one is seeing and as a journalist, this experience needs to be shared to the world

Also, the guy who did the deletion (UHooep) has not been in ok Ed in any of the discussions since the deletion and it is likely he has multiple handles that he is now using to argue his case This is another very sad thing. I hope the senior cadre in Wikipedia will take notice of this method in promoting bias and prejudice. I am calling it as it is and it is very shameful. Ck Anopueme Ckanopueme (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm calling it like it is, because it's very shameful for you to resort once more to reprehensible personal attacks. Of the editors who Endorsed before this crack (myself, Cryptic, Jclemens, Daniel, SportingFlyer, Robert McClenon), we all of us have been on Wikipedia nearly twenty years. Uhooep's first edit came eight years after the most recent of us made our first. This isn't "it is like he has" anything. This is you making stuff up in your head, and we await you retracting this at once. Ravenswing 05:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No evidence presented that the AFD closure itself was wrong, just an SPA that disagrees with the outcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This is not AfD round two; the consensus at AfD was correctly interpreted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Daniel, Jclemens et al.—Alalch E. 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Can’t fault the closure. The closer evaluated consensus correctly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An editor in good standing says that the AFD should be Relisted. It appears that User:Herostratus thinks that the nominator acted improperly. I am ready to consider that, but would like a clear explanation of what the issue is. I see that the version of the article that was nominated for deletion had 28 references. A slightly earlier version of the article had 31 references. So I infer that Herostratus is saying that the nominator deleted the 3 key references. Is Herostratus saying that the deletion of those references invalidated the AFD by removing the reliable sources that established notability? If not, would they please clarify the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which version had 31 different references?
    If you mean this version, which I linked above as "Version before" and which is the first in the diff Herostratus linked as "see here", it only has 29: the refs numbered 2, 3, and 16, "Segun Toyin Dawodu specialises in pain and sports medicine in US, also a lawyer" from legit.ng, are identical.
    The one missing from "Version after" is number 22, "Segun Toyin Dawodu specialises in pain and sports medicine in US, also a lawyer" from mynigeria.com; it reports that the article does not exist, and so does its only archive on the Wayback Machine. Which is why it was removed for being a dead link. —Cryptic 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Cryptic - I didn't say that a version had 31 different references. I wasn't analyzing the references for duplicates, only looking at the number of numbers. As I said earlier, I haven't done a detailed review, and don't plan to do a detailed review, because DRV is not AFD round 2. The version with 31 references is this one, and the version with 28 references is that one. I didn't review the references in detail because I didn't review the notability of the article in detail, because that shouldn't be the issue here. I hope that this clarifies my comment, but it was a question for User:Herostratus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is an unusual situation, in that an article with 28 references was found not to satisfy notability, without a source analysis table that questioned the references. But DRV is not AFD round 2. We are not assessing notability, but are assessing the validity of the close, which was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the reasons the close wasn't wrong is that what is substantiated is not a notable achievement. Scopus and ORCID are simply not that impressive: no recent articles, nothing that appears to be seminal, no huge impact. Verifiable? Sure. Contributing to notability? Unclear to no. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I have already Endorsed the close. I am just commenting that it looks odd. We agree that the article was reference-bombed with low-quality sources. But notability is not the issue anyway, in spite of all of the efforts of the appellant to demand that we discuss notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus was evaluated correctly. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright. I was apparently careless and wrong in thinking that the nomination was not legit. It was. And I'm double sorry cos this was insulting to the nominator. I'm not going to endorse because reasons, but I'm not going to vote for a relist either. It was a legit AfD and a legit deletion. However, here is full biographical article in what I think is a major publication -- 7th most read in the world's sixth most populous nation, according to Wikipedia. Quite long, way way more than a "passing mention". So that alone is getting close to meeting the WP:GNG. It's not we are overcovering the country of Nigeria, which after all has 230 million people and the official language is English. So even tho the AfD was legit doesn't mean it was correct.

I mean, sure, we don't have AFD 2 for articles, but that's only because we don't have the resources and interest. That's not a virtue tho. It's a shortcoming. If we had the resources for a two-stage consideration on the merits before some articles are deleted, that would not be a bad thing.

But besides all this there is WP:IAR. Supposing the article is relisted. Supposing it then wins. If the whole situation is just an annoying time sink and forever war, well... Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, we don't have to host any article we don't want to. If the guy is wikinotable, he's only marginally so, and if its not worth the hassle... I know that we have deleted a few articles over the years just cos they were time sinks.

FWIW over at ANI it was proposed that User:Ckanopueme be topic banned from the article, which I endorse, which I guess could fix that. But we don't have to spend the resources on rescuing this article if we don't want to, and that's quite understandable. Herostratus (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group L.L.C (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Draft:EFS Facilities Services Group was deleted last week as G11; I believe that is what this is referring to. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and this has been before us twice before and endorsed on similar grounds: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 9, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 January 8. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy Close and semi-salt all relevant draftspace titles so that only registered users can create drafts in the future. Enough is enough. Given the history, I'm not even wanting to ask to see the deleted material before assuming that G11 is once again valid. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it doesn't mention the company's "economic journey", but it has most of the other hallmarks. In particular, most of the external links in the absurd refbombing are showing up as already-visited to me (though I don't remember taking more than a cursory look in previous visits to DRV); this is typical of the new ones.

  The sad thing is, the claims in the draft are such that I'd expect there to be usable sources on it somewhere, but you'd have to be daft to try looking for it among all the shallow promotion they've paid for.

  I'll try to work out a regex less gameable than the one I tested in November, but something's changed such that these queries, which used to complete in minutes, have been running for more than an hour now and show no signs of stopping. For just an autoconfirmed+ blacklisting, it seems like wasted effort. —Cryptic 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (And, as usual, it completed almost immediately after I complained that it wasn't going to complete. The public version at quarry:query/84908 should eventually get populated, maybe quickly if it cached well, maybe not. There were a couple new deletions since the November try, no new false positives, and nothing that would be caught by the wider regex that wouldn't have been by the old.) —Cryptic 13:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, endorse and salt all relevant titles per Jclemens above. I would do this myself but I closed the last DRV so, with no pressing need to intervene, would rather another administrator do it. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Do not SALT. SALTing in draftspace encourages the game of cat and mouse with using variations on the title. Draftspace exists to attract and contain unworthy content, let it serve its purpose. It’s easier to keep deleting the same title than variations on the title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, speedy close, and title-blacklist for non-autoconfirmed users. Enough now. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah... title blacklist is probably the better solution. Never used it myself, so I keep forgetting it exists. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER (a recommendation from the previous DRV). I feel like blacklisting is going to be robust enough of a solution to figure as a net postive.—Alalch E. 15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Off-topic: Tariq Chauhan slipped through. —Alalch E. 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Alalch E. - Not entirely off-topic. The one sentence that is left about Tariq Chauhan is not enough to pass general notability, and has been nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse all previous deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Title Blacklist and list at WP:DEEPER (as recommended in previous DRV). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Salt in draft space. Useless drafts that cannot be accepted are harmless in draft space. Salting in draft space encourages the gaming of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ECP Salt in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]