I came to find that this article was deleted because the sources gave trivial mentions as per the deletion discussion (
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandar_Agashe). With just a quick google search of the subject and I was able to find news coverage of the subject’s business ([1][2][3][4]), music ([5][6][7][8]), and a bank scam the subject was involved in ([9][10][11][12]). Maybe these were not mentioned in the article that got deleted, and perhaps someone could add them? If it is not suitable for non-users to make suggestions like these, please promptly delete this post. This is just an avid wiki reader's suggestion.
2405:201:1006:E03A:5853:B349:68CE:798A (
talk)
14:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Before getting into project-level discussions like this, which allege a admin closer error of process failure, the nominator should be asked to
WP:Register, or at least to fully disclose their recent editing interests. But before that, they should have asked the closer on their talk page. Also, advise to follow the advice at
WP:THREE, please provide your selection of the three best sources, not so many sources that reviewing them is onerous. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I just reviewed three sources, chosen on the basis of being from typically reliable publications.
Endorse reasonable close but relist. I do hate it when noms say "clearly fails GNG" and then the briefest of double-checks makes it hard to believe there was a
WP:BEFORE check made. But checking BEFORE is beyond what we ask closers to do. —
Charles Stewart(talk)17:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
As closer, I support a relisting. The AfD nominator has since been blocked for undisclosed paid editing (perhaps Mandar Agashe is their client's rival?), which leaves us with only one usable opinion in the AfD. Sandstein 13:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose relisting, as the discussion is so old. Better to undelete, on the basis of challenge to the good faith of the nominator, and allow a fresh AfD, hopefully one with a better rationale. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
comment checking BEFORE, at least minimally, is not required of a closer, but it is often a good idea, in order to decrease the likelihood of careless or ill--motivated Afd requests. -- especially of afd request that get little participation. DGG (
talk )
10:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Relist. Close was reasonable at the time, but if delete nom has turned out to be (potentially) tainted, the AFD was poorly attended, and the closer themselves supports relisting, then let's just do it. The nuanced evaluation of sources with GNG, independence, and BLP concerns is best done at AFD. Not opposed to SmokeyJoe's solution, but seems like needless hoops to jump through.
Martinp (
talk)
12:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply