- Naveen Jain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Another attempt to whitewash the article by deletion by a bunch of SPA accounts. Jain is notable many times over as shown by the many high-quality references that cover him in great depth. Hipal (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah woah woah, calm down. Accusing people of whitewashing isn't doing anything. (That close was def ridiculous though. I was in the middle of an IAR unclose when you posted this to DRV, but since process is process and you beat me to it I'll let this run it's course.) casualdejekyll 02:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a substantial history of whitewashing attempts by employees and family members of Jain. --Hipal (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- COIN reports include: WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Naveen_Jain, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_46#Naveen_Jain, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#COI_editing_at_Naveen_Jain_yet_again, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Sleep_Country_USA, WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Just_odd --Hipal (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized I never did any proper !voting.. so, for the record, I'm all for Relist at AfD to generate a less scuffed consensus. (Maybe not overturn, though.) casualdejekyll 03:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as closing admin: The deletion consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) was clear. Only one other than Hipal voted to keep it. Including the nominator, that makes 6 to 2, for deletion. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is not a vote, all the SPA accounts should have indicated something is amiss, the mention of substantial coverage by major press should not be ignored, the history of PAID and COI editing in order to whitewash or delete the article indicates more care should be taken evaluating the AfD, and even the most basic attempt at checking shows the subject is notable. --Hipal (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this, and as of right now there are more users that agree it should be deleted. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to disparage your counting abilities, but I see only two editors who opined to delete. —Cryptic 03:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist OK, this is a very weird AfD. The nominator, appellant (at least initially), and one delete voter copied their rationales from the previous AfD, and 3 of the delete voters seem to be SPAs that might be sockpuppetry (won't make a SPI though, leaving that to someone else if they want). I also have my suspicions against one other !delete in the AfD. With these suspicions, I don't think there is a true strong consensus to delete, and a relist to get more opinions is needed. Jumpytoo Talk 04:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn or relist - there is clearly sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or external canvassing going on here. Of the 6 people who supported deleting the article, 4 had very small edit counts (17, 17, 19, and 56 edits). Abukakata05 (talk · contribs), for example, has no other edits apart from writing a draft about a digital media company. Any consensus which relies on these is going to be deeply suspect. The article had plenty of references to decent-looking media sources, some of which are obviously mainly about the subject, and I would have expected delete comments to present some kind of analysis of these sources, but instead they either made general statements or cited WP:SNOW (which is clearly not applicable here). Hut 8.5 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The deletion process has not been followed correctly, in that the closer failed to give appropriate (low) weight to delete arguments that were from very new accounts or that cited WP:SNOW, which manifestly did not apply either at the time of deletion or at any other time. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Due to the suspicious activity from multiple of the delete !votes possibly stemming from sock or meatpuppetry, as well as their claims that the 34 sources do not address the subject directly without any source analysis presented, I'm not seeing how the arguments were adequately weighed based on their merits. I see no benefit in immediately relisting if there is a current coordinated effort to remove its contents, in light of Hipal's links above. ✗plicit 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. There are multiple delete votes that reference WP:SNOW, which makes no sense in this context. This has to be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. Anonymous from Stack Overflow (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Something very hinky here. The SNOW votes are bizarre - both the keep and the deletes. The number of low-edit contributions is concerning. The lack of policy-related arguments. Need a thorough SPI check too, and a wider participation in the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Overturn 5 delete votes were cast. One incorrectly applies SNOW. Two claim a general lack of any sources, but as per this discussion, 34 sources had been included in the article. That leaves us at only two relevant delete votes, which claim that only the companies have notability. In fact, they are repeats of the arguments used in the original nomination, using no source analysis, which was closed as keep. Taking into account that no new well-grounded policy rationale has been advanced to delete, the close should be overturned to keep. Dege31 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Requesting immediate, temporary undelete as this is worked out because of the extremely troubling problems around this, and the need to reference the article to demonstrate how deep the problems go. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What "extremely troubling problems"? Admins are humans too, they screw up. Though screwing up after many years of doing it right may be a little concerning. casualdejekyll 19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That a well-established, well-written, well-referenced, well-reviewed article was deleted due to paid editors making vacuous deletion arguments. --Hipal (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There appear to be numerous in-depth sources in the deleted article, which most can't see, because the article is deleted. Can the article please be temporarily restored? Hipal doesn't do themselves any favour by turning a simple routine request into a rant. Nfitz (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And right on schedule, a new SPA has appeared to create a new article whitewashed of the original content--Hipal (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a temporary undelete, however there isn't much point as this discussion becomes eligible for closure very soon and the deletion will almost certainly be overturned when it's closed. Hut 8.5 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and semi-protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (3rd nomination), without prejudice to it being renominated for deletion by an editor in good standing (a mildly unlikely scenario though that may be). SN54129 17:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All the socks slept long enough to be well past the autoconfirmed speedbump. —Cryptic 18:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, create-protection then. After all, if the hypothetical aforementioned respected editor does present a case for deletion, that's easy enough to action. But our priority should be not to have our time wasted like this. SN54129 18:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since this hasn't been mentioned here so far, Draft:Naveen Jain was created today at 16:19 by User:Mokorow1122 (another editor with few contributions), and the draft was moved to main space by User:Vikuvshah and later deleted as purely promotional at 18:16 by User:Cryptic. BusterD (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist It does not appear that there was enough knowledgeable editors commenting to reach any consensus. --Jayron32 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacate adding this very late in the DRV discussion, but we could just pretend this incredibly odd AfD never happened. There were very few participants who seemed like they are acting in good faith, including the nominator, and the remaining votes would be a no consensus or relist. A relist would benefit the SPIs and a no consensus is probably correct, but I think vacating is a stronger result - I have no idea if he's notable, but a no consensus sort of implies notability is marginal, when we should be implying this was just a bad AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (no prejudice to Vacate) Now that I've seen the article itself, I'm beyond shocked at how this AFD was closed. Many of the references in the article easily met GNG. Both Keep votes noted that it had good references, while the deletes argue the opposite. But really - I only looked at four, and three meet GNG: 2003, 2010, 2017, and we have significant coverage, in major media outlets, over a period of about 15 years. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Definitely a mistake on the part of a well-intentioned closer not examining the quality of the arguments. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
