- K. Surendran (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This AFD was formed due to a clear political rivalry.The deletion was justified at the time. However, he has received a flurry of coverage in the media since appointed head of BJP Kerala state.makes he is clirly meet WP:GNG More specifically. Although a politician has not won any election but ,If he has received significant media attention as per WP:POLITICIAN (2) He is presumed to be notable.About Him more than 100+ reliable sources available in outside of wikipedia..Before I came here Also contacted the deleted admin.He moved the article to a Draft space and Now I expanded the Draft. But the admin said,Mainspace move depending on the opinion of the editors who supported the deletion of the article in the discussion. They're never ready for Support, and I have no choice. The article is worthy of presence in Wikipedia as per WP:POLITICIAN , WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC.This is a magazine that came out about him recently Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. This is really out of scope for DRV. There's zero chance we're going to overturn a well-attended, unanimous, AfD. The article is in draft space, submit it for review. If it gets accepted, the mainspace title can be unsalted at that time. Until then, there's nothing for DRV to do.
BTW, the fact that the portrait image is a professional quality photo, obviously downloaded from the internet but noted as "Own work" by a user named "Honesteditsvj", doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about the overall situation. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the bit about the photo being a copyvio. Based on the upload date and the date of the Indian Express article linked to above, it looks like they got it from us! -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not completely convinced that the AFD got this right. They might have held Mr Surendran to the wrong standard. He fails one particular SNG, but at first glance, that looks like a possible GNG pass to me. From a search of RSN archives, I think the New Indian Express and The Hindu may possibly be reliable, although I'm less sure on the other sources.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a correct assessment by the closer of the consensus. User:S Marshall is probably right that the AFD got the wrong result, but that isn't what we are doing here at DRV. (Is it?) Less than a month after the AFD, I am not ready to say to go ahead and create a draft. If I were the AFC reviewer of the draft, I would Reject a draft on notability grounds if it were so soon after the AFD. (I normally Decline a draft if there was a previous Delete at AFD, but if it was this recent, I would Reject.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the AfD got the wrong result, there needs to be a way to correct it. Deletion review's role is to scrutinize deletion decisions and, when we find them defective, find a way to repair the error. Although this is rare, deletion review has on occasion overturned an XfD to the diametrically opposite result on the grounds that the original decision was simply wrong. As a really clear example of this I'd cite a review of a CfD from more than ten years ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 24. This case is not similar and I would not advocate a straight overturn in this case, but subject to the views of other editors, we might perhaps go so far as to relist at AfD with a request to consider the GNG angle.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the sense that some are making edits here with political objections there is a dispute within and outside Wikipedia about some of the editors involved in the AFD debate, which undermines the credibility of this AfD.I wasn't involved in the AFD debate,I submitted the news links that prove this person's notability before the Deleted Admin but the admin says; That the article was deleted based on the views of the editors who participated in the discussion. Draft Move' will be contingent on the opinion of editors who supported deletion of the article in the discussion. I can't argue with them, because my knowledge is limited.I am afraid that if I invite other editors on the talk page of the Delete Admin, it will become canvas and become lawless. So I have no other choice to consult the opinions of other experienced editors.
- Here I submit a few reliable sources which confirm Surendran's Notability.
Thanks -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 06:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Padavalamkuttanpilla: You state that "there is a dispute within and outside Wikipedia about some of the editors involved in the AFD debate". Please identify which editors involved in the debate are the subject of such a dispute, and explain how this relates to the credibility of the AfD. Please bear in mind that User:Johnpacklambert and User:Bearian are among our most experienced and trusted editors, and although I am less familiar with User:GPL93, I have no knowledge of any dispute involving them and no reason to doubt their credibility. BD2412 T 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi BD2412 Sorry I was just talking about 'DBigXray'. Thanks-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 04:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You said "some of the editors", which is clearly a plural phrase. What other editors besides DBigXray were you referring to? BD2412 T 04:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: I honestly think it's too soon to reconsider notability. This coverage is really only talking about his new appointment as state president, which might be considered to fall under WP:BLP1E and all other coverage doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. I could be convinced otherwise, but for the moment I'm leaning to endorse the recent rather emphatic consensus to delete close. Maybe revisit in six months and see if the news coverage persists. Waggie (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was nothing defective about that discussion, and I would have voted delete myself. I'm not sure state presidents of political parties have inherent notability - this seems like a WP:BLP1E, and we're typically pretty careful with political articles. Suggest draftifying. SportingFlyer T·C 18:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer, it's already at Draft:K. Surendran (politician). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it seems as if that were a decent suggestion :) SportingFlyer T·C 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. First off, thank you for the chance to comment. I've been active on and off for 13 years as a Wikipedian. I have been "out" about who I am and what COI's I have since I was doxxed over a decade ago. Anybody can google me and see my social media accounts. I have had a reputation as an inclusionist. I'm not notable (yet) but as a blogger, academic, attorney, and political activist, but I'm out there. I've also been out in another sense - my domestic partner of almost 12 years is Asian-American. So I have no biased reason to delete this. My only bias is that the subject just doesn't meet our current standards for notability. I remind the gentle reader that we are an American charity. The taxpayers of New York, Florida, and 48 other states indirectly subsidize our work here. We are not a web host for political parties. Our charitable status in fact forbids it. In 2007, a person might have been excused for wanting their state/local political party officer to have a "page on Wiki". However, it's 2020, and the state of affairs should be known by all. Bearian (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting that while we are an American non-profit, donations do not just come from the US.[1] It's also worth noting that donations in no way affect our editorial policies and guidelines, this is something that Wikipedia editors feel very strongly about and would be the case irrespective of our non-profit status. Waggie (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I have no COI and my previous voting history on state-level party leaders has been consistent regardless of nation or political affiliation. Even with the new draft I notability isn't there, although if coverage is sustained over a period of time Surendran could meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was appropriate considering the deletion discussion. No voices in support of retaining the article. While many of the arguments made in support of overturning the close may have validity, they should have been brought up in the deletion discussion, where other editors could evaluate and respond. --Enos733 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
