Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 13

Mohan S. Gundeti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

A G11 speedy deletion (which are not allowed to be raised at Refund). I saw the page before it was deleted, and disagree that it was a G11 candidate. Admin stands behind their deletion and has no time to undelete the page but doesn't object if someone else does ("If you disagree, feel free to reinstate")[1].

• I've temporarily undeleted it for review as in my opinion, it's not sufficiently problematic not to do so. Star Mississippi 13:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore it's copy/pasta, but I think he's notable and there's sourcing on which to build an article. It can go to DRVAFD if folks think it's borderline, but I wouldn't have deleted this as speedy. I see more leeway for academics and those in medicine than youtubers trying to promote themselves. Star Mississippi 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got to agree with Deb. This is plainly promotional and needs far, far more than a {{
  Cryptic 13:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Moving it to draft might be a good middle ground? Clearly notable person, needs a rewrite, but would be a waste to lose all the good bits (like the sources and many of the basic facts).

  Fram (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have no objection to that. —

  Cryptic 14:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This would make sense and less waste of time for unconflicted editors. Star Mississippi 15:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Further reading @

  Fram restorinig if they were able to do so, it's unlikely she'd object to a draftification. So speedy restore to draft and save six days here so folks can edit the article? Star Mississippi 15:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Fine with me. Sorry I wasn't here for the rest of the discussion - dealing with difficult family matters. Deb (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, hope everything is OK. This DRV was about the article, no issue with your actions.

  Fram (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Deletion was entirely appropriate and I endorse it. No objection to moving to draft. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - There is format errors everywhere, a little copy editing whilst a draft could work in the main namespace. Happy editing! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the deletion as
  neutral. Why shouldn't it have been tagged for tone and for cleanup? The article is far too long, because it is full of promotion. For that reason, more volunteer work would be required to create an acceptable article from this bloated thing than to write a new article. Recommend against draftification for the same reason, because more time will be used in fixing the draft than in creating a new article. Do not waste time on a rewrite, but write a new Start-class article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't disagree with you in general @

  Fram correctly, they are requesting it so they can work on it ergo don't see it as a waste. Star Mississippi 13:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support speedy draftify. The existence of one draft
  does not obligate anyone to work on that specific one, so there is limited harm in my view. Endorse otherwise. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore to draft space per above. If the sole reason for deletion was the content being promotional in nature, that is
  WP:SURMOUNTABLE. If there are users who want to use the history as the basis for a good-faith rewrite, then it should be made available. Frank Anchor 14:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well, I think that one could potentially have all the promotion removed by turning this into a stub along the lines of Gundeti is a professor at The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. and thus would escape G11 deletion ... but being an unsourced claim on what seems to be a BLP is really testing the boundaries of
  WP:CSD#A7 and BLP policy. I wouldn't consider it an useful starting point for a draft, though; it seems like you'd have to throw out most of the current text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would not speedy that and would consider it a more than viable start. If challenged at AfD I'd !vote keep assuming the citation counts, etc. hold up. Needs some work, but that's true of essentially all of our articles. Star Mississippi 00:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]