- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sudam Mandlik ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Almost entirely unsourced. Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete The one source in the article isn't even of him. Grammarphile ( talk) 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. scope_creep ( talk) 22:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I added a reference which at least mentions the subject but not I think in a way that meets WP:POLITICIAN or wider WP:BASIC criteria. (If this article did survive, it would need severe pruning and verification - using the references which do not seem to be available - probably involving removal of the entire "Social and Political Qualities" section plus much of the remainder.) AllyD ( talk) 09:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete;Advertorial/promotional article.Subject hardly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 11:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No properly sourced evidence of passing WP:GNG, but nothing here entitles him to a presumption of notability under any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 16:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I note that the nominator reverted, without explanation, the addition of several external links that mention the subject in this edit. I'm not claiming that those links demonstrate notability by themselves, but it is disruptive to remove such sources during a deletion discussion, especially with the default "undo" edit summary that implies that their addition was vandalism. Notability-based AfD discussions are supposed to be examinations of the available sources, not battlegrounds where people remove evidence that doesn't support their case. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- The external links section of an article is not used to collate additional "sources" beyond those which are present as references. Sources are used as footnoted references, not as external links, while the only thing that goes under external links is the subject's own primary web page if he has one and nothing at all if he doesn't.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Stop the wikilawyering. If an article is nominated for deletion and its creator finds some potential sources (although I agree that in this case they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability) then those sources should be available to the discussion, and their addition to the article as external links, while not being the optimal way to present them, shouldn't be treated as vandalism. We don't expect everyone creating content to know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- And we also don't criticize the people who do know the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy from simply following it. So you'd be well advised to drop the pompous tone and start phrasing your points more politely and constructively.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you're looking for pomposity then I suggest that you look in the mirror. And are you, a supposedely competent administrator, saying that it was following policy for the nominator here to treat the addition of potential sources in the external links section as vandalism?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Er, I've been quite polite and haven't shown even the slightest trace of pomposity whatsoever. Just for the record, Zackmann08's been around Wikipedia for five years, and has a good reputation for knowing what he's doing — and having reviewed the links in question, I can confirm that they were not actually adding anything useful to the article at all. One of them was a Blogspot blog, which is never reliable sourcing for anything; four of the others glancingly namechecked Sudam Mandlik's existence a single time each but completely failed to be about him in any way that would count for anything toward demonstrating notability; and the last one completely failed to even mention his name at all. That is not "adding to the potential sources"; it's "filling up the article with an unproductive linkfarm". And incidentally, nobody said "vandalism" except you. Bearcat ( talk) 02:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you're looking for pomposity then I suggest that you look in the mirror. And are you, a supposedely competent administrator, saying that it was following policy for the nominator here to treat the addition of potential sources in the external links section as vandalism?
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- And we also don't criticize the people who do know the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy from simply following it. So you'd be well advised to drop the pompous tone and start phrasing your points more politely and constructively.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Stop the wikilawyering. If an article is nominated for deletion and its creator finds some potential sources (although I agree that in this case they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability) then those sources should be available to the discussion, and their addition to the article as external links, while not being the optimal way to present them, shouldn't be treated as vandalism. We don't expect everyone creating content to know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- The external links section of an article is not used to collate additional "sources" beyond those which are present as references. Sources are used as footnoted references, not as external links, while the only thing that goes under external links is the subject's own primary web page if he has one and nothing at all if he doesn't.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
86.17.222.157, this is a discussion of whether or not an article meets Wikipedia's standards. It is not your personal social media account. Please strike your comments against Bearcat. He's done nothing wrong. You can be blocked from editing for your personal attacks and disruption of this AfD. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 5DL, this thread started with me simply pointing out that the nominator here abused process by reverting the addition of (albeit pretty useless) sources leaving only the default edit summary, which should only be done when reverting vandalism. It was Bearcat who chose to argue about that and to call my tone pompous, when that was a word that I had deliberately avoided using about his previous contributions in the spirit of collegiality.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 18:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
-
86.17.222.157 You might be misunderstanding Twinkle. The nom did not imply vandalism when he reverted the edit
here. He has Twinkle, like most of us. He did not use the vandalism buttons. He simply clicked on 'undo,' to revert. If he'd used the vandalism buttons, a warning would have appeared on the editor's talk page. Instead, by using Twinkle, he was able to place an information message on the editor's talk page and welcome the editor to Wikipedia
here. If you felt he'd abused Twinkle, you could have questioned him on the article talk page. But not here. It was not an abuse of process.
Bearcat explained to you why the revert was perfectly harmless and why external links have no impact. He's an admin just giving you some information. No judgement. It's what admins do. You came back accusing him of Wikilawyering, when he'd clearly not done that. Bearcat has been active at AfDs for a very long time. His judgment is sound and his input here is well respected. He was simply trying to be helpful.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 21:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- The use of a tool such as Twinkle does not absolve an editor from responsibility for edits, including the responsibility to explain reverts of good-faith edits that might have an impact on ongoing deletion discussions.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- @
SW3 5DL: thanks for that and
86.17.222.157 as someone who continues to hide behind an IP that you can change at any time, your accusations carry zero weight with me. --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 04:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @
Zackmann08:. My pleasure. Everything you've done is completely above board. If this continues, it might be worth a block for the duration of the AfD. This is clearly disruptive.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 04:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- SW3 5DL, nothing is remotely disruptive in my replies. You chose to restart a thread where I decided a few days ago to let Bearcat have the last word, because we obviously weren't going to agree, and I have simply replied to you by pointing out that edit summaries should be given when reverting good faith edits and editors take full responsibility for edits done with Twinkle. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @
Zackmann08:. My pleasure. Everything you've done is completely above board. If this continues, it might be worth a block for the duration of the AfD. This is clearly disruptive.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 04:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @
SW3 5DL: thanks for that and
86.17.222.157 as someone who continues to hide behind an IP that you can change at any time, your accusations carry zero weight with me. --
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 04:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The use of a tool such as Twinkle does not absolve an editor from responsibility for edits, including the responsibility to explain reverts of good-faith edits that might have an impact on ongoing deletion discussions.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
-
86.17.222.157 You might be misunderstanding Twinkle. The nom did not imply vandalism when he reverted the edit
here. He has Twinkle, like most of us. He did not use the vandalism buttons. He simply clicked on 'undo,' to revert. If he'd used the vandalism buttons, a warning would have appeared on the editor's talk page. Instead, by using Twinkle, he was able to place an information message on the editor's talk page and welcome the editor to Wikipedia
here. If you felt he'd abused Twinkle, you could have questioned him on the article talk page. But not here. It was not an abuse of process.
Bearcat explained to you why the revert was perfectly harmless and why external links have no impact. He's an admin just giving you some information. No judgement. It's what admins do. You came back accusing him of Wikilawyering, when he'd clearly not done that. Bearcat has been active at AfDs for a very long time. His judgment is sound and his input here is well respected. He was simply trying to be helpful.
SW3 5DL (
talk) 21:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL ( talk) 16:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- These potential sources were added to the article but reverted by the deletion nominator without explanation:
- Expressindia - Court rejects MSEB plea in fraud case
- Times of India - Rich, but happy with their humble jobs
- Shades of the World - A Little of Everything
- Election Update - Sudam Mandlik secures a ticket from Shiv Sena
- Loksatta - Swatantrya Veer Savarkar Mandai Redevelopment
- Mid-Day - MSEB demands scrapping of political appointees
-
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- And as I noted above, none of these sources bolster the notability claim at all. Four of them just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something or someone else, one of them fails to include his name at all, and the last is a Blogspot blog. They're not offering improved evidence of a
WP:GNG pass.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- And I noted the same below, but the sources should be available to this discussion because it is possible (albeit unlikely) that someone might be able to use them to find some better sources. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- And as I noted above, none of these sources bolster the notability claim at all. Four of them just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something or someone else, one of them fails to include his name at all, and the last is a Blogspot blog. They're not offering improved evidence of a
WP:GNG pass.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As I said myself the source that was in the article when nominated was not actually about this Mandlik, and none of the others that have been offered since, or that I can find myself, have more than passing mentions. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and close. The subject doesn't qualify on our notability guidelines. Period. Lourdes 03:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.