Abhay nevagi (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This speedy deletion was based on a deletion discussion for a previous page. The content on both the pages are not the same at all. I contested the speedy deletion for which there was no response too. Zaim0113 (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: To save everyone having to do the same detective work: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay Nevagi led to the article's original deletion. Then Abhay negavi was speedied G4 (log), discussion User talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Deletion of Abhay Nevagi Page (the talk page was archived later the same day as the reply[1]), nominator's current sandbox User:Zaim0113/sandbox. Thincat (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that - what I'd like to know as a non-admin is whether WP:G4 was properly applied, though I shall leave this to others to determine. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the page, to allow more time for discussion. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Maile, but we still can't see if it was a valid G4, because to do that we'd need to compare Abhay nevagi with Abhay Nevagi and the latter remains deleted.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Echoing S Marshall again. @RoySmith: could you consider undeleting this the original one please? Hobit (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Roy. This contains marginally plausible sources that weren't considered at the AfD, so I suppose the most cautious approach is to list it there; but I want to note that I'm not thrilled to see re-creations after AfD that use clearly the wrong capitalization in the article title, and my AGF is being stretched quite thin because of that. I'd prefer a closing summary of "list at AfD" rather than "overturn".—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong capitalisation was not intentional at all. It was a typo. -- Zaim0113 (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not a suicide pact. I see this was created by a sock and your early edits are to create another article where you had undisclosed paid editing and this. Both display good markup skills for a noob. So, have you been paid to put this up and have you edited under any previous accounts. Absent satisfactory answers to this I endorse because volunteer time should noy be wasted to help grifters make money with no objection to an established editor with manifestly no COI having a go at this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per this edit the argument this was unintentional is a clear lie as you admit you knew of the deletion discussion.. That's an unshakable endorse from me now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, let me present my entire position on this. I am not lying when I said the capitalisation was a typo. I was aware that the page was existent earlier, however, I honestly thought that the person requires notability and I had not seen the earlier draft. I have not edited as part of any previous account. I understand that Wikipedia allows recreation of a page when the references are valid. An earlier page I also created while declaring the paid status. Even for this article, I disclosed the same. However, if everyone thinks the notability is not there, then I will accept the decision. -- Zaim0113 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm offended that you are using my volunteer time to make money. Where is my cut? If you are the noob you claim how did you know about our notability rules two articles in. I simply do not believe you. By the way you are required to disclose who paid you to write this article. Please do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More of my time wasted dealing with crap Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivkrupanand Swami Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the sources cited in this version have the same problem as the sources cited in the AfDed version: they don't do much more than namecheck the subject in the context of a news event where he was representing someone, and therefore don't show that the subject meets WP:GNG. (Except #1 which was written by the subject.) Sure, they're different sources, but that doesn't solve the problem. The AfD took place only a few months ago, the participants should have searched for sources which weren't in the article, and if these sources had been in the article they wouldn't have made any difference. I don't see a good reason to reopen the issue. Hut 8.5 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G4 explicitly 'excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version'. I don't see any similarities between the two versions one two , let alone sufficiently or substantially identical! The AFD itself was very poorly attended, with User:Johnpacklambert having a long history of making lots of very frequent delete comments in quick succession without doing any WP:BEFORE and only possibly User:Shivkarandholiya12's comment having any weight - though even then, I question how much BEFORE they did, having only seconds to comment at that AFD, after their comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Abboud ... on a mobile. The AFD was little-better than a soft delete. There certainly may be issues with the article - and the editors. But there's no way this was a G4. Nfitz (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]