Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 8 August 2023

5 August 2023

Zafar Mahmud

Zafar Mahmud (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

It seems clear to me that there was no consensus to delete. CT55555(talk) 22:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Overturn, it‘s clear that there was no consensus here whatsoever. It‘s a very odd close and hard to justify, in my opinion. Relist may be more appropriate given what has been pointed out re sockpuppeting concerns. A good discussion with particular attention to this issue is probably warranted. Note that there is relevant discussion on the closing admin‘s talk page, here. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC), edited 07:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC), re-edited 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you say more about what the concerns are? I saw @Star Mississippi and you talk about that on the closer's talk page, but I found it confusing and also thought it was about a different discussion, so am confused about multiple elements of this. CT55555(talk) 07:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Uff, I‘ll be honest: I‘m quite busy today, so I‘ve been following these discussions (and contributing) on my phone, and in the jungle of open tabs, I confused this with another issue raised somewhere else. Just disregard my previous edit. Sorry about the confusion. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Strength of argument is more important than numbers. The closer showed their work on the talk page, and this was a well-reasoned close. I have no problem with draftifying it if someone wants to try to fix it up, though, but it should probably go through AfC, even though we're behind there. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Restore for review, please I'd like to see the sourcing in the article at time of deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Ditto - please restore for review. In the meantime:
  • I'd like to keep the article personally although I don't think I !voted. It's just that the subject sounds interesting.
  • That said, I respect the process and I respect the closer, Spartaz. The only way I'd !vote overturn is if there were good refs added late in the process.

--A. B. 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Jclemens and A. B.: I went to do a temp undelete as I don't think my relist makes me Involved, but saw Draft:Zafar Mahmud has the entire history so I don't think an undelete is needed here. Ping me if I'm missing something? Star Mississippi 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Star Mississippi I'm happy. --A. B. 02:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus the AFD was listed for a month and there were only two “weak” votes not to keep, plus the nom. The keep votes did not present a strong argument to keep, as the only policy or sourced based reasoning were some borderline-GNG material presented by CT55555 (thanks Star Mississippi for linking the draft with history). Nonetheless, there was very clearly not consensus to delete/draftify. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep it appears there are two newspaper articles outside his own country about him, although I can access neither. AGFing non-trivial coverage, that's a GNG pass, even if nobody bothered to say that in the discussion. It's not the best or most important biography, but it's not a BLP and passes notability. There's no reason to close against numerical consensus just because what I just articulated wasn't articulated by less AfD-familiar participants. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep: as far as AfD discussions goes “ An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus” and I don’t think that was done, as the admin ignored the discussion and decided to use their own opinion, making them self a prosecutor and judge. The discussion should have been closed as Keep

FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The closer clearly listed their closing process on their talk page and it's clear they did not ignore the discussion at all. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

if you refer to this, it came after the closing of the AfD not before FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

And? What relevance does that have, just because they didn't write it out before hand doesn't mean it wasn't the rationale they followed. You on the other hand seem to suggest you have some mind reading ability and can determine exactly what they were doing, also with no written rationale. Last I check WP:AGF was still a thing on wikipedia. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

they need to write it then and there before they close. You closing an AfD with people participating there, the least you can do is explaining yourself, to them. Not close it and then justify what you did when asked, later. That is not how an admin should operate and it has nothing to do with assuming good faith.

and if the admin has an opinion, then they should participate in the AfD themselves, and not just upheld their opinion unilaterally. Admins are not owners of this place.

Nothing what the admin did fit the basic requirement for an AfD closure not even if you stretch it to a Supervote. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So your response is all about what you think an admin should so in closing a discussion, but that is nothing to do if their action constitutes a supervote. Fortunately the deletion process has this to say "It can sometimes be useful to provide a brief explanatory note, to make the rationale for the decision clear.", nothing about absolutely mandatory or that it's a supervote not to etvc. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• That discussion was tainted by socking. Spartaz was right to discount the "keep" from WhyWeAll on socking grounds, and I'm afraid when there's socking you have to weight IP contributions lower as well, which near-nullifies the "keep" from 100.36.234.200. This leaves three deletes (US-Verified, Piotrus, Visiva), for those who understand that "draftify" means "remove from mainspace", and three keeps (Indefensible, NYC Guru, CT5555). Two of the deletes say they're "weak", but the arguments that support them are really really strong, and they come with detailed and credible source analysis. Two of the "keeps" are specifically asking for the benefit of the doubt, and that's not how this works. I'm afraid the way this works is WP:CHALLENGE, and core content policies overrule the benefit of the doubt. So when I count the votes that way and weight them that way, I get to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think disregarding an IP editor's contribution because someone else in the discussion violated WP:SOCK directly contradicts WP:AGF. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  And you know it was someone else because... ?—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but where is the evidence sock/meatpuppetry played into the AfD decision? Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  WhyWeAll was blocked as a sock even before the discussion was closed. SportingFlyer T·C 17:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, that wasn't obvious from the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because assuming good faith is the default. Innocent until proven guilty, WP:AGF, etc. I don't know it was someone else, but I assume that the IP editor is a good-faith editor until there is substantive evidence to the contrary. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do agree with the other editors above. Our default should be to assume good faith for IP editors. Discounting them, in the absence of evidence, creates a double standard between IP and registered users and every conversation I've seen on that topic to date leads me to believe that we have consensus against that. CT55555(talk) 17:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to No Consensus. The close is a supervote and the closer gives a good argument for Keep, but not a strong enough argument for why numerical consensus should be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. Almost all the keep arguments acknowledged the sourcing was weak/non-existent. Unless they make a strong argument for IAR, there is no reason to give much or any weight to those !votes. Spartaz reasonably discounted them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse. Firstly, I don't think this is a supervote. The close rationale was unclear, but they elaborated on how they weighed the votes in their UTP. Hence, for me the question is whether they weighted the votes accurately. IMO the quality of the keep votes were very weak except for CT55555's. The 1st keep vote was a sock, whereas the 2nd keep vote also is not P&G or sourcing-based, and is at best a weak IAR argument. Regarding sock concerns, the IP is a SPA, but I don' think their type of edits or language style to be similar to the blocked sock WhyWeAll (no ping). The 3rd keep likewise vaguely claims to trust the sourcing and give the benefit of the doubt given the historical background..., but also cites no policies or guidelines nor makes any clear sourcing-based arguments, and should be weighed much less. The 4th vote was PERX. I don't think PERX should automatically be given much less weight, but looking at the voter's AFD votes, basically all of their last 10 AfDs are drive-by votes (hand-waving or WP:PERX), with none actually analysing the sourcing, i.e., see their most recent votes at 1, 2, 3, and overall should be discounted. This only leaves CT55555's keep vote (which was not that detailed but is reasonably source-based) and three delete ordraftify votes being P&G or sourcing based. Ordinarily given the significant quality discrepancy, I would obviously endorse the close. However, in this case, two of the delete or draftify were explicitly labelled as having weak opinions despite being strong in quality. Overall, IMO this is between a NC and delete/draftify, but the latter is within admin discretion, so I am weakly endorsing. VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse, largely per VickKiang. While I normally am ok with PERK votes, in this case the comments supporting a keep position (at the time) did not address the sourcing of the article, so it is hard to understand which of the arguments that NYC Guru was supporting (the IAR argument or vague claim there are sources). The sources that were brought up in the discussion were considered by one participant of not being significant, and echoed by the IP. I do note there was no prohibition on restoring this page as draft and that draft page already exists. I hope that editors include additional significant sources and bring this back into mainspace --Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse I find myself in agreement with Spartaz's analysis of all of the keep !votes other than CT5555's. CT5555's keep argument is per se reasonable, but the one person to actually analyze the sources they added found them to be be insufficient. A relist would have made sense there, except the discussion had already been relisted 3 times. So what it really comes down to is that the keep side failed to make a convincing case for notability, and hence the article was deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Overturn to Keep: I am not seeing any consensus to delete the article. Okoslavia (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Two Niles

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Two Niles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I have created Recipients of Order of the Two Niles category but then discovered a variant of this category was deleted after a discussion. As I think the reasons listed in Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Category:Recipients of the Order of the Two Niles are not longer valid, i.e.,

(1) WP:OCAWARD: there are several examples where this award is a defining characteristics, e.g., Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan, Akef El-Maghraby, Abdel Halim Mohamed and Mohamed Hamad Satti (to name few). There is also a huge list of people that are not Misplaced Pages but this award can help in make them pass the notability criteria. for example: Abdalah Grosh Sudanese Businessman. Although I have to confess that the majority of the recipients are diplomats but for example in the case of Yevgeny Prigozhin it shows Wagner involvement in Sudan, and Marta Ruedas, UN Resident and Humanitarian in Sudan, who received the award from Omer al-Bashir who was indicted by International Criminal Court for Darfur genocide. And many other examples

(2) no article exits, which I have created and appeared on the main page as part of a DYK, see Order of the Two Niles and Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2023/March#31 March 2023

By any means, I hope this is not taking as ignoring previous concensuses and I am happy to remove all people in the cat if a deletion verdict is reached.

@RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, and Johnpacklambert: who participated in the previous discussion.

@Good Olfactory: the admin who closed the discussion FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think if you examples of (1) are the best ones, I'm not sure I'd agree they are defining. Our article on Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan, doesn't even mention it, Abdel Halim Mohamed does mention in our article but it is a mention which would tend not to suggest it's defining - so I checked a few references the Royal College of Physician has a fair bio which doesn't mention it, and the couple of others I picked likewise... That said I'm really not sure what you are asking DRV to do, DRV doesn't have the power to Bless the category so it can't be deleted and reasonably the best place to discuss stuff like I just mention is a further CFD if someone nominates it (I only cover that stuff because I think if it does go to CFD that's the kind of stuff which would be looked at. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Excerpt from Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan#Awards and honours: The Government of Sudan awarded El Hassan the Gold Medal for Research and Science in 1977, El Neelain Order (First Class) in 1979, and the Order of Merit (First Class) in 1995. El Neelain Order is another name for the award

  As I said "I have created Recipients of Order of the Two Niles category but then discovered a variant of this category was deleted" it is a DRV matter if article was deleted before. So it is at least polite to try to consult the people who deleted it as I also need to move the category to the correct/deleted name. Cheers FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well you'll excuse my confusion/ignorance on "El Neelain" since the article on the award makes no mention of that, (and doing a very simple google search just now also doesn't give an indication that they are the same thing, but it was very cursory). Your response on DRV doesn't really answer my question my point, which is "I'm really not sure what you are asking DRV to do", deletion discussion are not "never ever" results so subject to recreation if things change. I doubt anyone would question if you are acting in good faith. I also think DRV is very unlikely to overturn the original discussion etc. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (as original nominator) Thank you for the ping and for creating the DRV. When you linked to the article I was expecting to find a bare bones list but Order of the Two Niles looks great! I'm not in favor of recreating the category though. Even if I agreed the award was defining for your 3 examples (and I agree with the IP editor above), WP:OCAWARD was rewritten by consensus a few years ago so the guideline now reads "A category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a #DEFINING characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." Going through the list of recipients it's clear that, just like most awards, this one doesn't meet that tough standard. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse the original CfD and disallow recreation of the category - it still fails WP:OCAWARD. The new list is an excellent alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)