Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 4

Pitobash Tripathy – page restored. There is a clear consensus that the original AFD was tainted by the nominator Dixicu, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, gutting much of the article prior to AFDing it. As Dixicu is the sock of a banned user, all edits made are to be considered null and void and I have looked at the last version before that of 13:53, 24 August 2021. While all Wikipedia articles are permanently "works in progress", that version looks like a complete article, and not just a draft. As such I don't think sending this to draftspace is a necessary intermediate step, and I will therefore restore the page in its 24 August 2021 version to article space. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Notable actor (known by media also as simply Pitobash). The actor has played the lead role in Kalira Atita that won the National Award and was considered for submitting to the Oscars. That film is also screened in Cornell. He has played significant roles in notable films such as I Am Kalam and Shor In The City (for which he won several awards, a critic here said that "But above all, Pitobash Tripathy's city cheapster, wannabe cool act deserves all the shining glory. He is so terrifically convincing, you beg for more of his screen-time"). For his role in Shanghai, a critic said here that "Pitobash Tripathi as a herd-following morchawaala, Bhagu, stands out". His role in Total Dhamaal is significant (in terms of screen time) and he is mentioned in a review here. Several sources exist here, here, here, here, here, and here. DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The afd nominator's SPI is quite relevant, and they removed almost half (by bytecount)/about three quarters (prose) of the article before taking it to afd. I'm inclined to throw it out on that basis alone, without even looking at the subject's merits. —Cryptic 00:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to Draft for review, based on statement by Cryptic that nominator, since blocked as a sock, had butchered the article before nominating it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the history of the article so that folks can see what happened & it's not so easy to analyze changes in the deleted page read form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as Draft so that newer sources can be added to the article to meet NACTOR / GNG requirement. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft/allow recreation: for whatever reason, these sources clearly weren't adequately considered at the AfD, so it's fair to give them a chance to be evaluated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Discourage drafting, because the nominator throws up a great many thin and non-independent sources. Draftspace should not be used to collect below standard sources. Refer to WP:THREE, maximum three worthy sources or we think your throwing dust into the air. In the meantime, improve his IMDB entry at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3329873/. Wikipedia is not a directory of all actors, but IMDB is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Overturn, due to the article being gutted prior to nomination, all by sock Dixiku (talk · contribs). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore as draft per Cryptic Happy editing--IAm Chaos 04:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate past AfD, Restore to mainspace we have 1) more sources identified which at first read through seem more than sufficient, 2) a sock nominator in the AfD, and 3) decimation of the article by the AfD nominator before the nomination, presenting it in a significantly worse light. Having said that, I would expect no prejudice against speedy renomination based on the vacation of the tainted AfD. A week should be plenty to fix this for a motivated editor, assuming that anyone even desires to take it to AfD right away. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate past AfD, Restore to mainspace per Jclemens' proposal. What we have here seems to be someone vandalizing an article and then nominating it for deletion. The vandal's efforts had nothing to do with the subject's notability, they were simply abusing Wikipedia's tendency to keep destroying articles on a daily basis. Dimadick (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate and restore per above - the SPI's gutting of an article pre-AfD is enough to have tainted the discussion without needing to dig into the merits of sourcing. Anyone who thinks this could be deleted can create another AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.