Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November 14

14 November 2017

Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo

Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closure which looks like a vote count rather than a review of arguments based on policy. I asked the editor to reverse his close and let an admin deal with it. His response was to tell me to open a discussion on the talk page of the original nomination or nominate it a second time. His exaplanation of his close reason seems abit garbled but would seem to support my original view that this was a vote count. Whpq (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• reluctant endorse- I don't think anyone else could have closed this differently. I will say though that the extremely garbled explanation doesn't give me confidence that this closer would be able to carefully judge a more nuanced discussion and I'd suggest they slow down with the NACs. Reyk _YO! 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree that closing the discussion as delete would not be likely, but given the lack of any independent reliable sources offered in the dliscussion to support the keep arguments, a no consensus outcome would make more sense than a keep, but I agree with Spartaz below that a relist with some informed participation would be the best outcome. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Meh I personally see no consensus either way. The majority of the keep votes are textbook arguments to avoid but functionally I see no benefit in moving it from keep to NC or getting an admin to void the keep and reclose NAC. What is needed is a better discussion so I'd recommend the closing admin consider relisting at their discretion or noting no objection to early renomination in their closing statement. Quite agree with Reyk about the closer slowing down their NACs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've engaged with the closing editor multiple times in the past on various issues, most recently on an incorrect re-listing. Their response has been of absolute silence, unless nudged strongly. I would concur with Spartaz here. I too would advise the closing editor to relist or noting no objection to an early renomination – but my guess is, this would be an IDHT case, until they are quite strongly suggested this. Lourdes 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Meh unless the votes can be proven to be sock-puppetry or by associates of Suman Sen, the close should stand. It was open two weeks, nobody other than the nominator supported deletion, and there's a plausible argument to keep the page. All the references other than social media are in Bengali which makes it hard to evaluate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus I'm not sure about closing as Delete given that there wasn't any support for that from anyone other than the nominator, but the Keep arguments were both very weak and well rebutted. That should preclude a Keep closure. I would suggest that it would be reasonable for the article to be renominated in a month or so, unless the concerns are dealt with through improvements to the article. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Void close and reopen discussion. This was essentially unanimous to keep, but that just shows that it's a classic example of why AfD's should not be closed by counting votes. Not a single one of the keep arguments even came close to policy. Closing this as delete would be entirely justified, but there would be less drama if it were just relisted and hopefully we can get some more insightful analysis. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. I don't think it could have reasonably been closed any other way. Suggest renomination. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stifle:--Seriously--You are supporting a closure based solely on the arguments of the article-creator and a trio of sock/meat-puppets (whose purpose of wiki-existence is more-or-less to promote the author and his books)?!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: - So, you think whoever creates Wikipedia articles, try to promote something or someone? I have crated more than 60 articles and always tried to write it in a neutral point of view, never intended to promote someone or something. Now, you might have heard of ABP Group, one of the largest media network in India, they also have book publishing house. If they say something about an author (who had previously published a book with them), what do you call it - "A self promotional activity"? I have given references, for the story and for the film based on it, but those are not being accepted. Taniya94 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Taniya94:--Mark my words.I said that about the three accounts that participated in the AfD save you and the nom.And those are not being accepted, because none of them is a reliable source.And if you think, every book published by Ananda and associated publishers is notable by default, well...Winged Blades ^Godric 15:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It could not be reasonable to close as delete an AFD where nobody other than the nominator argued to delete. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If the keep arguments are so off-the-wall as to cary zero weight, then yes, closing it as delete might be reasonable. Well, OK, WP:SOFTDELETE. But, preferable to that would be to get more informed input from other editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Void close and reopen discussion:--Per RoySmith.My mother-tongue is Bengali and the sources are crap.At minimum, make this a NC and I will revisit it soon afterwards.I echo that the closer is seriously incompetent at communication.And when a short story, published barely two months back is claiming to meet GNG, hmm.... Winged Blades ^Godric 14:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn this was at best a NC, or a relist. The closer did not adequately consider the nature of the support. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus per Hut 8.5. The weakness of the keep !votes, despite the !vote count should've led a relist. A relist or a new AFD would be appropriate if anyone wants to pursue it. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn. I've carefully gone through the "references" using Google Translate. The references are from the author's Twitter and Facebook, from the publisher(s), and there is at least one ref (currently #6) which is simply a piece of text, not a reference to any publication or anything. The publishing "houses", judging from their websites (blogging platforms where "articles" are added by a username which coincides with the site name (Ekabinsha), so it's not a reputable house which employs writers/journalists who need to be credited by their names) appears to be a decidedly low-brow purveyor of cheap entertainment. I know this type of pulp publications consisting of short stories, and these kinds of things NEVER merit even being remembered by those who read them two weeks after they've read them. IMDB lists everything in film world, including cheap junk which this very strongly appears to be. The problem with the close is that the closer's weak command of English not only would have prevented him from understanding a more nuanced discussion, had there been one,—I doubt he understood Wikipedia's policies well enough when (or if) he read them; specifically the policy of judging arguments by their merits, not counting the votes. None of the supporting votes had any meaningful arguments; they were merely assertions "this DOES meet the standards", and they were all convincingly debunked. The close would have been different had it been done by anyone who understands that it's not a vote count. Latreia (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

An investigation I've just conducted for another AfD shows that user Taniya94, who was a major just might have a COI here. Details to be found on my AfD page. Now, the "keep" voters on the original AfD which we are reviewing here were:

1) Taniya94;

2) IP 103.75.161.34 who, weirdly, has been spotted as the only other contributor (save for one random categorizer) on an article which I've submitted to AfD, with the other contributor being Taniya94;

3) User:Sathi.Mondal who is also, weirdly, a collaborator with Taniya94, and not just a collaborator, but a collaborator on drafts;

4) Sumit997, whose only two contributions to Wikipedia so far is limited to voting on this AfD and working on THE SAME draft of an article for a book which releases TOMORROW.

I think I have thusly presented a very strong case that the vote on the summary was pure sockpuppetry. I have no idea how to properly report sockpuppets, I hope that someone else, a more experienced Wikipedian, can do this for me. Four accounts listed above. Whpq, maybe you might be interested in doing this. –– Latreia (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)