Jairam Kumar Mahato (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Jairam Kumar Mahato" based on new evidence and arguments not discussed in the original deletion discussion.

Jairam Kumar Mahato was responsible for launching a notable movement in Jharkhand, India. Specifically, his protests led to changes in the recognition of regional languages, where languages such as Bhojpuri, Magahi, and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. He strongly advocated for promoting local languages and demanded that jobs in the state be reserved for Jharkhand natives, preventing individuals from other states from gaining these opportunities.

This qualifies him under Wikipedia's notability guideline for people as: 1. **Biography**: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." 2. **Politicians and Judges**: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

Additionally, he does not fall under "People notable for only one event," as his actions and media coverage span multiple related events (2 to be exact), thus meeting the threshold for separate documentation.

If required, I can provide citations for these claims. Thank you for considering this request. Sarim Wani (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jharkhand’s youth rallying behind this 30-year-old political outsider? Jharkhand withdraws Bhojpuri, Maghi as regional languages from Dhanbad, Bokaro amid protests Jharkhand election: a young leader’s growing popularity leaves established parties worried JLKM

above are some of my supporting citations

I request for my and @Genius64868: deleted articles to be immediately converted to at least draft articles at least for the time of this discussion and the links of those articles to be posted here so that the merger and work of the articles can continue for the time being Sarim Wani (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure; it could not have been closed any other way. Having said that, I'd favor restoring to draft so you can add sources. I can't see what sources were in the article at the time of deletion, but nothing about the commentary on the article suggests GNG was met, and I'm also uncertain about whether the new sourcing would be sufficient in combination. Hopefully, the AfC process can be helpful, but at least that should clear the identical recreation hurdle (CSD G4) so that if you did decide to put it into mainspace yourself, another AfD rather than speedy deletion would be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarim Wani's recreation which was speedied as a G4 cited only this, a duplicate of the same article hosted on msn.com, and this. I'd've G11'd it even without the AFD; removing the nonpromotional sentences would've left it as an A7.
    The sources in the last revision deleted at AFD were [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. —Cryptic 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's pretty much as I expected it would be. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there are two related but separate matters at stake here: 1) the AfD closure which this DRV is asking us to review; and 2) (implicitly, at least) the events leading up to this DRV.

• RE (1), there is no doubt that the AfD was closed correctly as reflecting clear consensus; therefore (and saying this as an uninvolved editor) I fully endorse that closure.
• RE (2), I'll happily concede that the G4 speedy request which I executed on Jairam Kumar Mahato wasn't strictly-speaking valid, in that the new version wasn't "substantially identical" to the one deleted following the AfD. However, given the AfD concluded that insufficient evidence of notability had been provided, and since the new version (created only days later the AfD closed) provided even less of such evidence, I didn't see any point in taking the article to another AfD to re-litigate the matter on weaker grounds than before.

Arguably, I could have draftified the new version instead of speedying it, which is indeed what I offered to do here, but rather than taking up that offer the author of the new, G4-deleted version decided to open this DRV instead, in my opinion unnecessarily. The offer to restore the article to a draft still stands, assuming the author agrees to go through the AfC process rather than (re-)publishing it directly as it stands. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please don't G4 something that's not substantially identical. Draftifying it with instructions is perfectly valid, but a G4 speedy is a stricter bar than many admins apply in practice. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this clearly looks like a classic article on a political candidate actively contesting an election, which we also see from the "please don't delete before the election" plea in the AfD. I did have to look through sources to see if he was otherwise notable, but I would keep deleted unless he wins the election. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I am even more confused

  For everyone who has not heard my stance/ are too lazy to go up here it is in plain light

  I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Jairam Kumar Mahato" based on new evidence and arguments not discussed in the original deletion discussion.

  Context:

  Jairam Kumar Mahato was responsible for launching a notable movement in Jharkhand, India. Specifically, his protests led to changes in the recognition of regional languages, where languages such as Bhojpuri, Magahi, and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. He strongly advocated for promoting local languages and demanded that jobs in the state be reserved for Jharkhand natives, preventing individuals from other states from gaining these opportunities.

  Additionally, he does not fall under "People notable for only one event," as his actions and media coverage span multiple related events (2 to be exact), The launching a notable movement and The recent elections coverage

  thus, meeting the threshold for separate documentation. (Please note that the following person has also got a lot of the obc vote in Jharkhand making him even more popular.

  some of the supporting recourses below:

  https://jlkmparty.org/ https://scroll.in/article/1075548/in-jharkhand-a-young-leaders-growing-popularity-leaves-established-parties-worried https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/Feb/19/jharkhand-withdraws-bhojpuri-maghi-as-regional-languages-from-dhanbad-bokaro-amid-protests-2421373.htmlhttps://www.newslaundry.com/2024/11/14/why-is-jharkhands-youth-rallying-behind-this-30-year-old-political-outsider

  Context End

  This qualifies him under Wikipedia's notability guideline for people as:

  1. **Biography**: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

  2. **Politicians and Judges**: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

  Please understand that this user stands under 2 notability fields and a wining of an election is not mandatory for the candidate to be listed on wiki that's why I understand zero things which are listed under this please tell me if I am not getting something which I have to get

  thanks :)

  Sarim Wani (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I Think I you all are misunderstanding me or I am misunderstanding you

  more context

  I am trying to justify notoriety here (of the person) I am suggesting 2 options so that the work can still continue

  1. reinstate the article (no drafts and open the deletion review there that way this mess is avoided I will still continue working on it)
  2. reinstate the article as draft (no deletion review. I can complete and cite the article and the article can be reinstated as an article (my article not the other one)

  I also request my article to be sent to me by email asap Sarim Wani (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sarim Wani, I think you are misunderstanding what is happening here. AfD and Deletion Review are very different processes. In the AfD discussion, editors discussed whether they thought the article should be deleted or not. Here, in Deletion Review, the question is whether the person who closed the AfD was reading the consensus correctly. So if everyone at AfD was saying "we should delete this article" and the editor who closed the AfD said "everyone was saying we should keep this article", they would be wrong and editors here at Deletion Review would say "no, that editor made a mistake, and we should overturn the decision". Instead, everyone at AfD said "we should delete this article", so the closing editor said "everyone says we should delete the article", and so everyone here is saying "the closing editor was correct, everyone did say that".

  You should probably also read WP:SCAM, because you might be contacted by people pretending to be Wikipedia administrators or special editors who say they can get the article back if you pay them. Do not pay anyone money for a Wikipedia article. It's a scam that often targets people who don't want an article deleted. They cannot do anything, they'll just take your money and vanish.

  I hope that has been at least a little bit helpful to you, and wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AFD deletion based on unanimous consensus. No opinion on the G4. Restore to draft to allow Sarim Wani or another user to improve this article to the point where it can be mainspaced based on several additional sources presented above that may or may not be GNG appropriate (DRV is not the venue to evaluate sources). I would highly recommend that any recreation attempt go through the WP:AFC process, though this is not a requirement. Frank Anchor 14:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to clarify this that the following desions were made

  1. the following persons meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) (proof above
  2. The fist article will be deleted
  3. my article to be Restore to draft until its ready

  or

  no this does not meet afc delete it

  which one is it? Sarim Wani (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  beacuse if it still does not meet afc even after that concrete proof I am willing to explain it all over again... Sarim Wani (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  or

  1. the following persons meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) (proof above)
  2. my article to be Restore to draft until its ready

  Sarim Wani (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  POINT TO BE NOTED THAT ENTIRE DEBATE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato IS BASELESS My analysis to the "debate" [16] Sarim Wani (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  google docs also uploded :) [17] Sarim Wani (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Points to be noted (from my side)

  1. the following person(s) clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jairam Kumar Mahato is baseless [18]

  I advise

  • my article to be restored (draft or normal) and re-open the delete discussion there so I can properly give it my peace of Mind (i.e) have concrete proof for any further debates

  or

  • the article (my article) to be straight up restored (draft or normal) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please slow down, you don't need to respond to every comment made, and you don't need to keep posting the same argument repeatedly. Half the edits to this discussion are now from you, which is starting to get awfully close to WP:BLUDGEONING. Just let the discussion run its course, please. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  got it... Sarim Wani (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last question (Pleas dont ban me here too) (here everyone have a free goat!)

soo there is no process to repon debates so that's why we have "recreate it" and then we can "re review it"

Am I correct? (I am new here don't know a lot of stuff please don't ban please) Sarim Wani (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a discussion on Sarim Wani's talk page to explain the process to them and answer any questions they may have. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the only reasonable closure of the deletion discussion.
  • • The purposes of DRV include arguing that the closer was wrong, but not that the community was wrong.
  • Allow Recreation of Draft and review of draft.
  • Allow Undeletion of deleted article to draft space.
  • Caution to appellant: You have already been partially blocked once for bludgeoning a deletion discussion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus was correctly interpreted. There are no grounds for a DRV#3 review, since the appellant participated extensively in the AfD but failed to raise any of these arguments there (not that the arguments would have been successful). Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, Sarim Wani didn't participate in the AFD discussion but the article creator, Genius64868, did. Sarim Wani then recreated the deleted article and that was deleted via CSD G4. If I was them, I'd be arguing that the original article be restored to Draft space as it was in much, much better shape that the recreated version was. But Sarim Wani, there is no point in continuing to argue here as many participants in this review already recommended restoring this article to Draft space.

Additionally, Frank Anchor, we always advise content creators who are working with versions of articles that have been deleted through an AFD that they should (even must) go through AFC rather than moving the draft article to main space. The AFC reviewer can check and make sure that the problems raised in the AFD aren't still present and also it avoids questions about a possible CSD G4 tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can we restore both and merge them then? Sarim Wani (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. Must have subconsciously conflated the bludgeoning in both discussions. Will strike. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for an independent actor to end debate with :

• Endorse. Allow Undeletion of both deleted article to draft space
• Allow Recreation of both articles to draft, and Meger them and then re-review of draft (after some more editing)

Thank you

Best regards Sarim Wani (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Appellant has been indefinitely blocked per discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]