- Rahul Easwar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
A lot of substantiation & News Links from India's most credible channels were given. It was deleted without giving opportunity for counter arguemnt> Alex.mathews (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason 3. A lot of new information & News has come regarding the subject. Please Review (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Endorse per lack of reasoning. Nom claims that "new information has come" but doesn't specify what or how it might change anything. Deleted by consensus at AFD in January 2012 here, and it would take a pretty revolutionary change in notability to reverse such a recent decision, which I don't see either in nom's staement or the most recent deleted article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted the article as a repost of an article deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination). Yesterday, Alex.mathews posted to my talk page questioning the deletion, to which I gave a reply, briefly explaining why I saw no evidence of notability. Alex.mathews posted again, indicating that he/she was not persuaded by my reasons. I explained that I had to go offline, but that I would try to give a more detailed reply today. However, I happened to find by accident that, rather than wait for me to do so, he/she has posted this deletion review. It is fortunate that I happened to find it, and unfortunate that the poster did not think to inform me of it.
- The arguments put forward for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination) apply just as much to the latest repost as to the version discussed there. Probably the most significant arguments put forward were (1) the sources cited are not essentially about the subject of the article, but rather about issues on which the subject of the article is campaigning; (2) the article appeared to be aimed at promoting a cause. Both of these comments are every bit as true of the repost as of the article discussed there, as are other comments in that discussion. Below, I post a description of each of the references in the version of the article that I deleted. Not a single one of them can reasonably be considered as substantial content about Rahul Easwar, and the reposted article still suffered from all of the defects mentioned in the deletion discussion, including those I have mentioned.
- The "references" in the article were: (1) a page inviting readers to "Chat with Rahul Easwar on what Baba's legacy means to you", i.e. a blog page run by Rahul Easwar, not about him; (2) a YouTube posting of a discussion in which Rahul Easwar takes part: again (partly) by him, rather than about him; (3) a five-sentence report that Rahul Easwar has called for a board to accept all applications for appointment of priests, irrespective of their caste; (4) another YouTube posting of a discussion partly by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (5) a dead link; (6) another YouTube posting of a discussion partly by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (7) a news report containing a single sentence mention of Rahul Easwar; (8) an article by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (9) a YouTube posting of a talk by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (10) another YouTube posting of a discussion partly by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (11) a link to a list of YouTube videos including Rahul Easwar. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We need a side-by-side comparison of the deleted articles to assess whether G4 strictly applied.—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I think all the versions are in the edit history I restored. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, DGG. I'm afraid that to a strict analysis of procedure, this is an open-and-shut overturn. This is the version deleted in 2005 at what was then VfD, and this is the version deleted under G4 in 2013. They're not substantially identical, and even if they were, DRV would not normally enforce G4 after a 7-year time gap. It's not for JamesBWatson to evaluate the sources on his own authority. As an administrator JamesBWatson is empowered to assess consensus and to perform speedy deletions where certain very narrowly-defined criteria are met. He isn't an arbiter of content. AfD is where sources are evaluated. On procedural grounds there's simply no way we can endorse this and if the nominator insists then the deletion must be overturned and the material listed at AfD instead. However, this would be a very bad idea because in the real world, if put to AfD in this state, it would be a SNOWBALL deletion.
In other words, although I've said that JamesBWatson isn't empowered to evaluate sources on his own authority—and I'm not either!—I do think JamesBWatson is completely right and I think it would take an absolute maximum of seven days at AfD for this article to be deleted again. I'm normally a dogmatic man who likes to see the procedure followed to the letter, but even I'm not prepared to recommend that. I think it will be best if the content is userfied to Alex.mathews so that he can provide at least two sources that fully meet our standards for reliable sources. At that point Alex.mathews should consider returning to DRV with his draft article for us to reassess it. Is that acceptable to everyone?—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FIRST of all Apologising to James, Because being a junior Wikipedian, i was not aware that my behaviour of posting in deletion review, when i was awaiting your response is not right. Sorry for that.
PRECISE REPLY
1. It was not a Blog Post. I was a CNN IBN Channel Official Page, where they invite noted figures to air their opinion abt people who passed away. IT WAS AN OFFICIAL CNN IBN page.
2. TIMES NOW - OFFICIAL PAGE - http://www.youtube.com/user/timesnowonline/videos?query=rahul+easwar - where many videos where he participates in discussion
3. Article by Him on Leading News paper which makes him Writer / Author - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7434202.cms?prtpage=1
4. As James B Watson rightly pointed out 1 link was dead link - But it was active when I searched it. This is now not appearing, may be maintenance issue - http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm ( a googling can make us understand it was there)
( I assume, it was the problem of the website )
5. He has participated in all Major channels in India, Times Now, Cnn Ibn, Ndtv, Headlines Today - http://www.istream.com/t/news/rahul+easwar
I strongly Feel, & request JamesBWatson to go through this & kindly re evaluate
(and apologies for writing it here earlier, I have written some in your talk page & here too: Pls tell me if it is not good behaviour, I ask because i dont know.. Happy to correct my behaviour upon suggestion from you ) (Alex.mathews (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Whether the word "blog" is appropriate for the first reference is of little relevance: the point is that it is run by Rahul Easwar: it is not an independent, third party, source about him. Under point 3, you say "Article by Him on Leading News paper which makes him Writer / Author". Nobody disputes that he is a writer, but once again, something written by him is not evidence of notability, as we need writing about him by others. Likewise, at points 2 & 5, you say that he has participated in discussions, but once again we need evidence of substantial coverage about him, not by him. The deletion discussion attached importance to the fact that the cited sources were not substantially about Rahul Easwar, and that was still so for the repost. Thus the repost did not address the issues that led to its deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JamesBWatson, thank you for engaging. If some errors have occured from my part, I apologise. I will be more careful articulating my view points to you. and would like to point out 1 thing along - being the spokesperson of 1 of the largest Pilgrimages in the World - Sabarimala - according to Forbes Traveller, MSNBC itself is a sign of notability. You can see, there are millions of pilgrims coming to the place. & as you rightly said - many articles are by him, he is participant in those discussions.
please see this too - ARTICLE / Coverage ON RAHUL EASWAR - http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm (THis site was down, perhaps, when you checked. This is one of the most credible news papers in India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu )
I hope you wont disengage & continue to grant me a little more time. Thanks & regards.
(Alex.mathews (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I think the page should be reinstated. lot of media citations on the subject. (62.150.123.160 (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Requesting the administrators to reinstate the page. Enough & More valuable content & links & sources are available on Rahul Easwar (96.231.55.214 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
These much materials are available, the page should be created (208.7.38.227 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, I actually came here to say that, although I disagree with S Marshall's interpretation of the speedy deletion criterion, having thought the matter over, I was prepared to withdraw my deletion, and allow a chance to improve the article. However, when I got here, I saw a string of IP messages saying that the article should be reinstated, all saying essentially the same thing. Looking into the matter further, I found that at least two of the IP addresses are proxies. I also found that one of the IPs refers elsewhere in the past tense to posting here, although that IP had not, at the time, posted here. There is no way that I am going to withdraw my deletion under those circumstances. If the person or persons responsible for this clear attempt to rig this discussion (presumably mistakenly thinking that the review would be decided by a vote) would like to contact me on my talk page and explain exactly what he/she/they has/have done and why, then I will be willing to consider whether or not to go back to my intention of withdrawing the deletion. Please note that I am not by any means ruling out the possibility of doing so, but simply saying that I am not going to do so unless and until the clear impression of attempts to get that result by dishonest means is removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear James B Watson, as a person who raised this issue with you & apologized when I was not exhibiting right behavior according to Wikipedia standards out of ignorance, I have always requested you as a senior wikipedian. Would again request never to bring any personal element to wikipedia editing. Iam sure, being a senior editor, you have the right, seniority, knowledge to delete any article. But bringing in a personal element against any ip address, or any people who are doing any wrong action is unfortunate & junior people like me who are seriously & sincerely watching may be disappointed. So, would request you to improve or let carolchris contribute more or any one who wants to contribute, allow them to, & also protect seriousness of Wikipedia (Alex.mathews (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
And Iam posting here, because I hav posted some messages in your talk page too. May be because of your schedules, you couldn't give attention to it. Hope that it ok. & I hav given interviews not just by him, News on him & interview of him. [ For your ref, : http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm]
Pls bear in mind that there is nothing personal or "want to somehow counter you stuff". Regret any wrong communications from my side. Happy to learn from you & at the same time, contribute. (Alex.mathews (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Dear James B Watson,
I would like to show here a recent news article about a program in which Mr.Easwar was honoured in Kuwait - http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/191771/reftab/36/t/NSS-Mannam-Jayanthi-2013/Default.aspx
- This establishes that Mr. Easwar is notable even outside our country. So please tell me how to reinstate my page.
Carolchriskevin (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)kevin[reply]
- Looking back, I no longer think that the new version of the article was substantially the same as the one deleted following the last AfD, so I have withdrawn my deletion. I might have reached this conclusion earlier, had discussion focussed on the one relevant question, namely "was the article substantially the same as the one deleted following the last AfD?" rather than bringing in irrelevant issues, such as comparison with an article deleted years ago, and arguments over whether the subject is notable. (Not to be confused with arguments over whether the re-created article showed that the subject is notable, which is not the same thing.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
