Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archives/2025

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Archives

Ardi Pulaj

Hi i want to request undeletion of page Ardi Pulaj, his notability is confirmed in Albanian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia ( after a discussion) with related arguments.If his page will be restored, further references will be added to prove his notability here also.[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]
Thank you.--81.26.204.11 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was quick-deleted as 'A4 - doubtful notability'; what could possibly be done is to undewlete the page, and to send it to a disussed deltion. This would run for a week, and afterwards an independent admin would close the RfD. Dear IP editor, please create an account, if you want to contribute more often; your voice will aso have more weight. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the draft on enwiki w:Draft:Ardi_Pulaj is similar to what's here, I would prefer not to undelete it. Many of the sources are BY Pulaj, or are interviews with Pulaj, what's needed are sources ABOUT Pulaj. The socking aspects don't help my view either. Ravensfire (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That first source is just an item written by the subject. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through most of the stuff, it seems like a lot of the sources are either where the subject appears on TV, or is something written by the subject. I don't see much to show they meet WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: The draft on enwiki is similar. If anything, it contains more info than the article here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. If it's easier to run this though an AFD to put this to bed, that sounds okay to me. I suspect there's some IP sock evasion from Benny8907 here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
be more open dude, not everyone has time to spend to ip invade for just an article!! you treat this like law and order...!! 185.175.253.205 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand your afraid about "socking" aspect?!! If someone is notable in his country (Albania) this case ..whats matter if socket created his pagae that deleted later?! By this never will be created or approved a page of an notaable people just becouse was first created by a sockpuppet?! for me this is wayy unlogically!! This is Wikipedia not Court!! 185.175.253.205 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Mendiola

 
Mendiola historical marker
Dear admins, I would like to respectfully request the undeletion of the article, Enrique Mendiola. His notability can be seen in Tagalog Wikipedia, Enrique Mendiola despite the gruff header (note: it is not being deleted in spite of it). Enrique Mendiola (b.1859 — d.1914) is one of the Philippines' pioneer educators and legal authors. The thoroughfare named after him, Mendiola Street has been the stage for many mass rallies for human rights; and political and labor protests. I can volunteer to work with further erudition and improve these articles — if allowed. For your consideration, please. Buszmail (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a final appeal for Wikipedia worthiness:

Respectfully,
Buszmail (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done No consensus to restore.--BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: BRP ever 05:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blinkit

I am requesting a review for the deleted page "Blinkit." The company is notable as it is already covered extensively on the English Wikipedia (en:Blinkit), where its importance and relevance have been established. Blinkit is a leading player in India's quick-commerce industry and was acquired by Zomato, a publicly listed company. I believe this topic meets the notability criteria and is suitable for Simple English Wikipedia as well. I am prepared to rewrite the page in simpler language to match the guidelines. Abhey City (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This was deleted due to advertising, and it's not all that neutral. It would probably be ok with some pruning and a copyedit. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to request the article "Blinkit" to be moved to my user space for further editing. I will ensure the content is rewritten to meet Simple English Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and tone. Abhey City (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - The article is now found here. Griff (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Griffinofwales, I've made the page to neutral can you please check and make it in mainspace? Abhey City (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article no longer meets G11 and has been restored. Thank you Abhey City. If other members of the community believe the article should be deleted, it should be done through the RFD process. Griff (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Griff (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the quick removal of Jadidi music

Hello, a Jadidi music article was tagged by a user because of the creation of the deleted article. I object to this, is it not possible to restore an article that has already been deleted by correcting the defects? Does an article that is deleted remain banned from Wikipedia forever? This article was removed in the past due to some defects, but now it has been fixed, please keep it, and deal with the quick removal. Oosmoosatv (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oosmoosatv: It looks like that article was deleted because you were evading a block, possibly even multiple blocks, when you created it, even though the blocks weren't on the userid you used to create the article. (Blocks are intended to apply to a person, not necessarily just to a specific account.) (@MathXplore:, please confirm.)
Even if that wasn't the issue, I think that article could have been deleted under WP:QD#G4 (recreating deleted content), even though it was created under a different title. Therefore, I endorse the deletion of the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback to the review. I'm sure that I'm facing the same user again, and a steward has agreed to my assessment. MathXplore (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the nom locked the request could probably be marked as resolved now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Griff (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Joe

I wrote the page so simply to avoid its being mistaken for advertisement. I am more than willing to change the writing as administrators say. Please think whether the sources below are enough for Black Joe to meet WP: GNG.

carriers of sources

According to BBC's Macau media guide, Macao Daily News, Jornal Tribuna de Macau and Macao News (a.k a. MacauNews) are all great news companies of Macao. According to BBC's Hong Kong media guide, HK01 is a great news company of Hong Kong. If you believed the BBC was right, you would presume all of those four to be reliable.

content of sources

  1. HK01's significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (Muay Thai) and performer (Google Translate-d)
  2. Jornal Tribuna de Macau's significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (kickboxing and Muay Thai) (Copy to Google Translate)
  3. Macao Daily News' significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao performer and fighter (Muay Thai) (Copy to Google Translate)
  4. Macao News' significant coverage of Black Joe as a famous Macao fighter (Muay Thai) (No need to translate)

answering questions

  1. Auntof6: You asked for 'A statement of something that makes the subject notable', I give 'Black Joe is a famous Macao Muay Thai fighter and performer'. I am willing to put all those sources and their main points in the topic page.
  2. Griffinofwales: You had already said that two of the sources above were 'reliable' and had given 'significant coverage'. This time, please take a look at the other two as well. WP:GNG does not limit the ways for anyone to become 'notable'. In this case, 'Macao Muay Thai fighter' is point one, 'Macao performer' is point two. I am willing to re-write in any ways you see fit.

something else

There had been mistakes with procedures. Otherwise, we would now be talking on a 're-listed' 'deletion discussion' instead of an 'undeletion discussion'. This may be talked about later. 江马 (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is famous does not show notability. It is a claim of notability, which can prevent quick deletion of an article, but it doesn't really show the notability. Remember that we are looking for notability, not fame. Saying that a person is famous is kind of vague. For example, you or I might be famous for some things among our friends, but that doesn't make us notable for Wikipedia purposes.
I just looked again at what was in the article when it was deleted. It contained statements about:
  • The person's stage name and various forms of his real name
  • Being a showman and sportsman
  • His ethnic background
  • Companies he acted for
  • Singing with TiKMAN
  • A statement of things he is "good at" (Being good at something in no way shows notability. I'm sure we're all good at something, but that doesn't make us notable.)
None of those show notability. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Before you left these words, I had already told you twice that I was willing to change the article as you wished. So, there has been no need to worry how good or how bad the deleted writing was, as it had nothing to do with a topic's 'notability' according to Wikipedia's rules. Have you read the sections carriers of sources and content of sources above yet? Do the four sources described there make Black Joe meet 'WP:GNG'? May you talk about this for the first time? 江马 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@江马 I hear that you're willing to improve the article, but that's not the issue. This page is for discussing the deletion that happened, not how to improve the article. Maybe you would like to create it in a personal sandbox where you can make improvements and, assuming you want to, ask for comments and/or suggestions.
One more thing: I can understand that you might be frustrated about the article getting deleted, but please stop shouting with bolded text. Thanks.
With that, I've said all I think I have to say here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I apologize for my words having some-how made you feel bad, but I am sure that you have got me wrong. Setting some words bold do not mean 'shouting' or 'frustration' at all. It is just a useful way to mind others not to miss something. For example, I like Griffinofwales' bolding of the words 'not' and 'in my opinion' because it minds me where to take a close look at. Seeing your 'I've said all I think I have to say here.' and 'This page is for discussing the deletion that happened, not how to improve the article.', I know it is time to move on to start talking about the 'something else'. You may still want to take a look at the new part 'wrong procedures' below. 江马 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the RFD, I have already made my position known. My opinion is formed around the statement that not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation (Notability guideline). Why? 1. Black Joe has not met the subject-specific notability guidelines. 2. the coverage in reliable sources is not focused on any aspect of him except for that identified in the subject-specific notability guidelines (for example, they do not say he saved 100 people or invented a new way of fighting), and 3. local news sources frequently will cover events, companies, and peoples of local interest. That, in my opinion, should not automatically grant notability.
However, the primary reason for a DRV is not to discuss the merits of the article again, but to review the RFD. As an involved editor, I do have some bias, but this RFD fell appropriately to the closing administrator to use discretion in independently evaluating policies, guidelines, and the arguments made to close the RFD. In this respect, I believe that Auntof6 has 1. appropriately assessed the RFD in line with the policies, guidelines, and arguments given in the RFD and 2. closed the RFD within the bounds of the broad discretion administrators are given to assess RFDs.
I appreciate the respectful discussions we have had on this topic and look forward to working with you further on the project. Griff (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Griffinofwales: Thank you for telling me more about your thoughts on the topic's notability. I now understand that 'in 'your' opinion', the sources I wished you cared do not need to be talked about... never mind! Just as I had said in the 'something else' part above, I do know that a DRV is mainly used 'to review the RFD'. In fact, I started this DRV according to Auntof6's odd reply, that is why it looks quite like an AFD. I am starting a 'wrong procedures' part below to talk about this matter. 江马 (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@江马 There is a consensus to delete based on what I see. The other keep comment doesn't say anything more than what you already mentioned. You have failed to gain agreement to the claim that the sources are reliable, independent and show the significance of the subject. There is barely any content in the page to begin with, supported by load of sources that are only there to make the subject look notable, which is not very normal. I will just endorse deletion here. BRP ever 14:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wrong procedures

From the start of the AFD, my main point has been that the five or four sources are enough to show that Black Joe meets WP:GNG.. That is an elephant in the room! Since Griffinofwales joined the discussion and did not use any administrator tools, they are free to choose to talk and think about anything or not. However, Auntof6 is different. According to the WP:DP on regular English Wikipedia, 'The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete.' This is useful here because Simple English Wikipedia's WP:DP does not have such a part. When she closed the discussion by deleting, no extra words were left. So I asked whether she had found consensus in it, but none of her replies were about this. Her saying about the discussion was '...felt...correct...' and '...arguments...stronger...'. Instead, she kept stressing that the lack of notability was due to what she saw on the deleted writing, which was off-topic according to 'WP:ARTN'. The 'delete' side did talk about it, but does it go with policies or guidelines? Is this point great enough to make the other side's point about 'WP:GNG' not worth looking at at all? As we can see in the talk above, she would not say anything on whether the four sources described there make Black Joe meet 'WP:GNG', which is the 'keep' side's main point. I assumed good faith of Auntof6, but now we can clearly see that she is quite biased in this case. She should have joined the discussion the way Griffinofwales did, or just let another administrator do the closing if it was too late, instead of going ahead without ever willing to show how much her choice has to do with any 'consensus' already on the table to look for. If that AFD was closed as 'keep' by someone else, Auntof6 could choose to re-list it without using administrator tools, and then write down anything that goes with or against Wikipedia's rules there. In short, if there had been a consensus in the discussion, the administrator should follow it when closing. Other-wise, the page should be kept and the AFD may be re-listed right away by them. 江马 (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are just skipping the whole content and mentioning lines. 'I read the arguments, and for me the arguments for deleting were stronger than the ones for keeping' was the main point. Consensus is judged based on arguments and your disagreement is accounted, as is the comments by other editors. An admin can also check the page to see if the claims made in RFD are true or not. BRP ever 14:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete @江马: Give up already! As you know so much about the written rules, your brain must've understood enough about what'd been going on days ago. There's never been an accident, it's just that your heart wouldn't take it in! Of course it's wrong to delete your article, but I'm voting in this way for your wellbeing. It's pointless to argue why the goalposts keep moving, simply let it go... 微甜微酸微苦＿＿微鹹 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion fr33kman 02:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not restored Consensus to keep the article deleted.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder

:I have gone through my reasoning on the category page, but it has since been deleting, so I am going through it again here.

I want the category for people with developmental coordination disorder to be undeleted. The reason is that there are clear double standards at play regarding the deletion. You can see the original reasoning as to why it was delted here. The category was deleted per WP:NONDEFINING, as the articles which I presume were listed under developmental coordination did not focus on the people's dyspraxia to a large extent. I do not know what articles were originally listed, however, I did make a category last week, which got deleted because of this consensus and so if the list was like mine, this does not hold up to scrutiny. Some people, such as Gage Golightly, do in fact have a significant amount of their article dedicated to their dyspraxia, as half of Gage Golightly's early life section is about her dyspraxia. Others, such as Olive Gray, spend just as much time on their dyspraxia as they do other disabilities, in Olive Gray's case being her ADHD and dyslexia, yet are listed in categories relating to those other disabilities. Tom Hunt's page focuses more on his dyspraxia than his dyslexia, yet he is listed in a category for politicians with dyslexia. Other articles, such as the aforementioned article on Gage Golightly, as well as the article for Daniel Radcliffe, have them listed in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned. It does not make sense that dyspraxia is unable to have its own category because it is "not defining", yet there are so many pages under categories for people with ADHD and dyslexia, even in cases where dyspraxia gets just as much attention within the article as the other two disabilities. This is clear double standards, and I would like the category to get undeleted.

The person who has originally suggested to delete the article also told me that part of their rationale was that dyspraxia affects about 5% of people, and that is too common to be defining for most people, which is another example of double standards at play, as dyslexia also affects about 5% of people, and, as we've established, there is no shortage of pages listed on various categories of people with dyslexia. And as for whether dyspraxia is not severe enough to be considered defining, many of the people listed in categories of people with dyslexia do not seem to have severe cases of dyslexia either.

I can think of no good reason why I cannot make a category for people with developmental coordination disorder, yet there are 116 pages and 9 subcategories under the people with dyslexia category. The only reasons for this I can think of is double standards, a poor understanding of developmental coordination disorder, and misuse of the non-defining rule.--UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be addressed on the English Wikipedia, not here. Griff (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as quick closed per Griff, not a matter related to the Simple English Wikipedia. The request should be made at the appropriate place at enwiki.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 22:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 22:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the page People's Insight

This section was archived on a request by: Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to request the undeletion of the "People's Insight" page. We have added all necessary references and sources to the page, confirming that it pertains to an exit poll and political analysis company. We are committed to adhering to Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. We assure you that we are ready and willing to promptly address any further edits or modifications that you may require to ensure the page's compliance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your positive response and the restoration of the "People's Insight" page. 009dishu (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references here that show that this company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Griff (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable media outlets for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025, demonstrating its noteworthiness. Here are references:
  • Wikipedia's 2025 Delhi Legislative Assembly Election Page: This page lists People's Insight among the pollsters that conducted exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, indicating its involvement in significant political events. en.wikipedia.org
  • NDTV Article: An article titled "Delhi Election Results 2025: BJP In, AAP Out, Exit Polls Get BJP's Capital Wapsi Right" discusses the accuracy of various exit polls, including those by People's Insight, in predicting the election outcome. ndtv.com
  • Business Standard Report: The report "Exit polls proven right in Delhi as AAP witnesses an unprecedented rout" highlights the role of different exit polls, mentioning People's Insight's contributions to the electoral analysis. business-standard.com These references demonstrate that People's Insight has received significant coverage in reliable sources for its role in conducting exit polls during the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025. Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required.
009dishu (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NDTV and Business Standard Report articles are passing mentions only, not good sources. Other Wikipedia pages are also not good sources. We may use the data in our articles, but the entity that produces the data is not automatically notable because of that reason. To show notability, there need to be multiple independent (read w:WP:NEWSORGINDIA) reliable sources with significant coverage of the article subject. That's not being shown with these sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. To address the notability concerns regarding the "People's Insight" article, I have conducted an extensive search for independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, particularly in the context of the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections. Here are the findings:
Our Media Coverage : peoplesinsight.in
  1. Hindustan Times Article: In an article discussing exit polls for the 2025 Delhi elections, Hindustan Times mentions People's Insight's projections: "People's Insight projected more than 40 seats for the Bharatiya Janata Party, giving the incumbent AAP 25 to 29 seats." hindustantimes.com
  2. Times of India Report: The Times of India, in its coverage of exit polls, notes: "According to People's Insight exit poll, the NDA is likely to get 40 to 44 seats, the AAP 25 to 29 seats." m.timesofindia.com
  3. CNBC TV18 Coverage: CNBC TV18 highlights People's Insight's predictions: "People's Insight predicts AAP winning 25-29 seats, BJP 40-44 seats and Congress 0-2 seats." cnbctv18.com This comes under Incorporating information about People's Insight's contributions and projections into broader articles related to the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections or discussions on polling agencies in India
009dishu (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@009dishu, using an AI generated reply that's basically exactly the same as the one I replied to, and ignored the points I made about significant coverage is not helpful. I get that you're employed by this company and probably are getting pushed to get something published, but responding as you are, with AI generated replies and ignoring the policy based issues that others are raising does not help and is starting to get into disruptive territory.
In short, this list of sources utterly lack significant coverage, just like the other ones you have listed. This is starting to feel like a waste of time when you don't really read the policy pages that are being linked. And please, don't even try to say your replies here aren't AI generated. They are. It's that obvious. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I understand the need for stronger sources and better alignment with Wikipedia’s notability policies. I’ll review the guidelines again and work on finding more substantial coverage. Thanks again. 009dishu (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the "we" you are referring to? Also, have you read w:WP:PAID and make the required disclosures? These are not optional, and it's part of the Terms of Use you agree to follow every time you edit. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding the 'we' reference:
I am referring to the team or representatives of People's Insight involved in managing our public communications and ensuring accurate representation on platforms like Wikipedia.
Disclosure Compliance:
Yes, I am aware of and have read Wikipedia's Paid Contribution Disclosure Policy (WP:PAID). To comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I disclose that I am associated with People's Insight and contributing on their behalf. All edits and discussions are being made transparently to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the page in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines."
Thank you and please reconsider your decision and let me know if anything else is required. 009dishu (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend continued deletion - Subject of the article does not meet notability requirements. -Griff (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.
If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence. 2405:201:5023:4046:4817:497C:4EB2:6C34 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I believe the subject of the article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as outlined by the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Specifically, the subject has been covered by multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, rather than mere mentions.
If there are specific areas that require more clarification or additional references, I’m happy to provide further sources or improvements to the article. I kindly ask for reconsideration based on the available evidence
009dishu (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that we would simply undelete this article. It was unambiguous advertising. DRV is where we discuss whether a deletion was correctly applied, not a place to hash out whether an article should exist. I endorse the deletion and should probably be closed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee Vilenski, I understand your thoughts but let me tell you it's not a advertising or anything related to promotion, It's directly related to politics, People search for exit polls and we are that compamy, Here is a full proof article that is in "The Print" please check and I request you to undelete this page and let me know if anything else is required.
https://theprint.in/politics/exit-polls-enter-mystery-a-new-business-model-where-politics-is-key-sample-sizes-rarely-matter/2510663/ 2405:201:5023:402A:2489:A4FE:E6A:3360 (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deletion Review and Article Restoration: Ayaz Syed

This section was archived on a request by: Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request a deletion review for the article about Ayaz Syed, which was deleted on 24 January 2025 following a deletion discussion ([link to the discussion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/Ayaz_Syed)).

I understand the concerns raised during the discussion, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources and the article's failure to meet notability guidelines (WP:BIO). However, I believe the article can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I would like the opportunity to do so.

Here’s why I think the article should be restored: 1. Notability Can Be Established: I have identified several reliable, independent sources** that provide significant coverage of Ayaz Syed's work and achievements. These sources include: 

  - [H! Pakistan article](https://www.hmagpak.com/22-Jun-2024/television-s-new-dream-team-hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-in-kabhi-main-kabhi-tum) discussing his work on Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum**.  
  - [Good Times article](https://www.goodtimes.com.pk/2019/12/14/fahad-mustafa-peoples-actor/) highlighting his contributions as Fahad Mustafa's personal makeup artist.  
  - [Bol News article](https://www.bolnews.com/showbiz/2024/06/hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-set-social-media-ablaze-with-bold-photoshoot/amp/) praising his work on Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.

2. Opportunity to Improve**: The article was deleted before I could address the concerns raised by editors. By restoring the article, I can: 

  - Add proper citations** to reliable sources.  
  - Remove any promotional language and ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).  
  - Expand the article with verifiable information that meets Wikipedia's content standards

3. Subject's Relevance: Ayaz Syed has made notable contributions to the Pakistani entertainment industry, particularly as a makeup artist for prominent figures like Fahad Mustafa and popular shows like Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum. These contributions are worthy of documentation on Wikipedia.

4. Collaborative Improvement: I am committed to working with other editors to improve the article and ensure it meets community standards.

I kindly request the opportunity to restore the article and make these improvements. If there are specific guidelines or additional steps I need to follow, please let me know, and I will gladly comply.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the work you do to maintain the quality and integrity of Wikipedia.

Best regards, [Salman] 202.47.46.54 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2025/Ayaz_Syed 202.47.46.54 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my AI-generated response to your AI-generated request:
Dear Salman,
Thank you for your message and your thoughtful request for a deletion review of the article on Ayaz Syed. We appreciate your effort to improve the article and your commitment to adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines.
After careful consideration, the decision to delete the article will stand. While we acknowledge your intention to enhance the content and provide additional sources, the article did not meet the notability standards (WP:BIO) during the deletion discussion. The sources provided, though valuable, do not establish sufficient coverage of Ayaz Syed as required for notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the article had issues with sourcing and promotional language that would need to be addressed for restoration.
Given the concerns raised during the deletion discussion and the continued lack of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, the restoration of the article is not feasible at this time. However, if more reliable sources are identified in the future that meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, a new article may be considered.
Thank you again for your understanding and for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Best regards, 2601:644:8184:F2F0:4C62:E0B:70C2:2EA1 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Administrator note: Although the IP's comment is worded as though it is authoritative, be aware that it is not. It should be taken as one user's opinion. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: I looked at the article. Here is what it contained:
  • A statement that the subject is a Pakistani makeup artist
  • A statement that he is a makeup artist for a particular game show
  • A statement that he is the personal makeup artist for someone
  • Links to the subject's pages in IMDB and Instagram
None of these indicate notability, even with references. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear,
I hope you're all doing well. I wanted to take a moment to address the recent discussion about the article on Ayaz Syed I understand the concerns raised about the article's current state, particularly regarding notability and the lack of sufficient reliable sources. I truly appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into reviewing the article and providing feedback.
That said, I’d like to respectfully request that the article be given a chance to stay, as I believe it can be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. Here’s why
1 Notability Ayaz Syed has been a part of the Pakistani entertainment industry for over two decades, working on well-known projects like Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum. He’s also the personal makeup artist for Fahad Mustafa, a prominent actor and TV host. These contributions have been covered in reliable sources, such as:
- [H! Pakistan](https://www.hmagpak.com/22-Jun-2024/television-s-new-dream-team-hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-in-kabhi-main-kabhi-tum), which discusses his work on Jeeto Pakistan and Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.
- [Good Times](https://www.goodtimes.com.pk/2019/12/14/fahad-mustafa-peoples-actor/), which highlights his role as Fahad Mustafa’s makeup artist.
- [Bol News](https://www.bolnews.com/showbiz/2024/06/hania-aamir-fahad-mustafa-set-social-media-ablaze-with-bold-photoshoot/amp/), which praises his work on Kabhi Main Kabhi Tum.
2 Improvements I’m more than willing to work on improving the article. Specifically, I plan to:
Add proper citations to the reliable sources mentioned above.
Expand the content to include more detailed information about his career and achievements.
Ensure the article adheres to*Wikipedia neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and avoids any promotional language.
I completely understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards, and I’m committed to making sure the article meets those guidelines. If there are any specific steps or additional improvements needed, please let me know—I’m happy to follow through.
Thank you all for your time and consideration. I really appreciate the work you do to keep Wikipedia accurate and reliable. 202.47.46.54 (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I looked at the article and agreed with Auntof6's analysis and conclusion, and in the sources you have provided above I am unable to see any WP:SIGCOV of Ayaz Syed.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the article was full of junk sources, the ones mentioned in this request are a passing mention (name-drop really) at best. It was a purely promotional article that should stay deleted. AI generated requests put my level of confindence in any useful improvement at a very low level. Ravensfire (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this is a suitable close to the AfD. Almost all !votes were regarding deletion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I think AI written undeletion request, This article has a full of junk sources. 🌙 Raayaan9911 Ramadan Kareem! 01:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis

This section was archived on a request by: Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a micronation. In other words, someone claims to have created a country, but their claim is not taken seriously. It was deleted 3.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Verdis, but Free Republic of Verdis has been recreated. At this point, I think there is enough coverage of the topic to meet WP:GNG, so the article should remain. 2607:F140:6000:802A:78CA:262B:852B:1FDF (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is what DRV is for - 3 and a half years is enough time for the notability of a subject to be re-addressed. I'd move this item to the talk page (note: this isn't a review if the article meets GNG). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lee, 3 years is more than enough time for the subject's notability to be re-addressed in a discussion.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tay

Joe Tay (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs) (restore page)

Notable actor. I added several notable works. More can be readily seen in imdb bio. How is it advertising g11? RoyZuo (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the content. It didn't look like advertising to me, but I don't know if it showed notability. The only thing that might be a claim of notability, the statement that he won the CASH Pop Song Composition Competition, isn't sourced. Even if sourced, though, we'd probably need some evidence that winning that competition makes someone notable.
A couple of other comments:
  • The article needed some simplifying.
  • IMDB isn't considered a reliable source. We could use it to find information, but we'd have to verify it somewhere.
@Fr33kman:: Since you deleted this one, would you like to comment? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6600916 is being wanted with one-million-dollar bounty and hence getting on headline news notable or not? RoyZuo (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at the article and agree it's not really advertising but it certainly doesn't make a credible claim of notability. I'd be willing to Undelete it and send it to RfD for more comment by the community as a whole. I think that would be the best thing to do. fr33kman 04:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as resolved per Fr33kman sending it to RfD.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Archives/2025&oldid=10164039"