Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 28#Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat

:{{DRV links|Dr. Steel (album)|xfd_page=Unknown.|article=}}

Per direction from Skier Dude, representative from TSU would like to request this page be temporarily undeleted so that we may review this page in order to bring it in line with standard Wikipedia practices in an objective manner. Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article has been restored to User:Jonnybgoode44/Sandbox Steel - it was originally deleted with the note "‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: Part of the Dr. Steel "Operation Wikipedia" spam campaign)". Further comments requested... Skier Dude (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Is the userfied version identical to the one that was speedied?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, as far as I can see the version userfied was the version that was speedied. Doesn't appear to be overtly promotional to me, but from JzG's deletion summary I get the impression there might have been more going on - quite possibly the G11 was more due to the clear intent of the creator from past experience. ~ mazca ^talk 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Although it is similar in many respects, I've made changes to the page to make it compliant with WikiProject Albums. However, input on how it could be further improved is welcome. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• This and the pages linked therein are informative, I think. Tim Song (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the 'past experience': Yes, there was at one time an ill-advised attempt by fans of Dr. Steel to spam Wikipedia with less-than-objective articles that were little more than viral marketing spam. However, that was shut down by the fan club forum mods nearly a year ago.
  This is a new, unrelated effort by a small, select group of the more mature members of his fan base, who have been working in concert with Doctor Steel himself to put up a more objective, less 'promotional' encyclopedic entry that will reasonably stand alongside Doctor Steel's peers (Abney Park, Unextraordinary Gentlemen, et. al.).
• I hope the closer chooses to come here and elaborate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Why? What is written by xem at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22#Doctor_Steel, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 21#Doctor_Steel, and User talk:JzG/Archives/March 2008#Doctor_Steel seems quite clear. And then there's User:JzG/And the band played on.... Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The article made no claims to any notability (it had no sources, claim that the album had been released by a major label, etc) and the past campaign of deliberate spamming (which, according to the above post, is continuing, albeit in a more subtle form) is a good reason to shoot these articles on sight. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• I have edited my previous statement here, because I believe I may have misunderstood Nick-D's objection. As I have re-read it, I believe Nick-D was not referring to the main Doctor Steel article, but specifically to this album. After reading Album Notability, I think I grasp his objection. If the Wikipedia admins deem that the albums themselves are not worthy of having their own pages, the links and subsequent pages can be removed, of course. Regarding the spam charge: nostra culpa; his fanbase admittedly spammed Wikipedia in the past. That ended a year ago, and they even had teams going through Wikipedia to make sure it was stopped and remove things that were put up. This is an entirely new effort to place objective content up regarding the actual band, rather than spam pages. We are open to input by Wikipedia admins on tailoring the content to be more objective and compliant with accepted guidelines. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I also think that the article on the band should be deleted as it's not notable, but that isn't the issue here. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Well, the version in your sandbox does not appear to be suitable for speedy deletion. It appears to be a good faith article and I think permission should be granted for it to be moved to mainspace. This is not to indicate that it would survive the articles for deletion process involving community discussion, just that it's not suitable for speedy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but permit recreation per WP:AGF. I think that it was within the admin's discretion to delete per G11 in the peculiar circumstances of this case, but that was more than a year ago. I'm willing to assume good faith and permit recreation, subject, of course, to the normal deletion processes. Like S Marshall, I don't think the current version is speedy-able. Tim Song (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question: The album was released as a series of MP3 downloads. Doesn't this show lack of notability? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:* I'm currently seeking confirmation on this... I'm not entirely certain. (Before my time.) But you may be correct. I know it was re-released as MP3s, but not 100% sure about it's initial release. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

::* Note: I reversed the edit I did there until I get confirmation on it, one way or the other. (However, it might be notable that this album and the two that followed are the only ones currently available, the others are out of print, nor are they available digitally...) Shouldn't take long; Doctor Steel is usually very fast at responding. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:* Answer received: Apparently the first three albums were released (and currently in re-release) as digital albums. (Dr. Steel prefers to work in the digital paradigm.) The fourth and fifth albums were compilations with extra tracks and remixes, and were released in CD form, but have since sold out and have not (as yet) been re-released. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too overly surprised by this. Doctor Steel is clearly outside the mass media traditions; he has said on several occasions that he prefers to work in the digital realm. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can somebody please tell me why we have an article at Doctor Steel despite numerous deletions and endorsements at many different titles? It was protected-deleted, so how did it arrive? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Doctor+Steel Logs here]. I note that it is sources form blogs, the subject's website, the subject's MySpace and the subject's YouTube channel. I don't see any evidence of non-trivial independent sources, I do see evidence of viral marketing and "Operation Wikipedia". Guy (Help!) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:If I'm reading the page history correctly, it was at Doctor Steel (band) (which wasn't protected) before an admin moved it to the current name, bypassing the protection. Tim Song (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and remove the other album articles as well; he's not on a major label, he hasn't had any chart success, all of them are not notable enough for individual articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Hickory Springs|xfd_page=|article=}}

The article was speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike as G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Another editor, who may have had a conflict of interest, created the article. I recognized that the article was unreferenced, so I located and added some references. It's not a great article, but I think the subject is notable and the article should have been tagged for cleanup rather than being speedy-deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, qualifies as spam from what I can see. Recommend userfication if Eastmain will undertake to clean it up, with no further DRV necessary to move back to mainspace after doing so. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• response from deleting admin - while I recognize and appreciate Eastmain's efforts, this one was such a total advertising stinker (written by their advertising guy, apparently), parts in first person, that I felt it was a clearcut speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A very clear CSD case; my favourite bit was the little ™ and ® symbols every time the company's products were promoted mentioned. I also concur with Stifle that Eastmain may place an encyclopaedic rewrite in the mainspace without a further DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe userfy to Eastmain for now so he can work on a draft there? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Restore Eastmain's version and let him work on it in mainspace. Certainly the original version was a G11, but it had already been fixed a good deal, and by a reliable editor. . I have this problem too when I'm trying to rescue an article, of making the improvements quickly enough. If I wait to make them all it gets deleted, if I don't do enough at first, it looks like I haven't solved the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Your efforts are seldom so problematic, David. The version I deleted was 90-95% undiluted spam, PR fluff (often in the first person) written by their ad agency rep. My advice to anybody working on a "rescue" is to hack it back to the stub, retaining only a reasonable assertion of notability; then regrow from the stub. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but allow recreation – I'm certain we can get a neutral, encyclopedic article out of this. We could userfy to Eastmain's namespace so it can be worked on. MuZemike 06:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Restore Eastmain's version - The newer version just didn't seem like blatant spam. The sources linked in the article indicates passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Restore to Userspace I do think that the G11 close was precipitous in light of the efforts by Eastmain to correct the problems. Now that it has been deleted, the appropriate next step should be to restore it to Userspace for Eastmain where it can be gutted and reworked as needed. Alansohn (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat|xfd_page=|article=}}

Mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the Delete side was heavier than the Keep side. Secondly, the person is just another small brick in the bureaucratic wall of Pakistan. Hasn't done something notable himself except that he is holding a certain Cop job/position. Leaving the entire world aside there are several hundred such positions in Pakistan alone and Wikipedia can't afford to have separate pages for each of them, hence the reason for this review.  MARWAT  01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. While !vote was 9-7 to delete, the socking made the whole AfD a mess. It would be well within the closer's discretion to simply void this whole thing as irredeemably sock-tainted. On the merits of the arguments, I can't say that it's clear error to close as no consensus. As to your second point, DRV is not AfD redux. Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• I can't fault the close and I endorse it, but due to heavy sock involvement I would like to make it explicit that I would permit immediate relisting. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Relist. Not just "permit relisting", but actually do it. When there's evidence that an AfD has been tainted by sockpuppetry, the outcome may be unsafe.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, even the participation after the socks reveals no clear consensus either way. A relist may fix that, but I doubt it - I'd personally recommend leaving this as a valid no consensus close, and renominating later if necessary. ~ mazca ^talk 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep.. Definitely clan rivalry.The gentleman has been nominating it again and again for deletion due to clan rivalry that exists in marwats. (119.73.6.224 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

Who is the above user? He is using the I.P address which has just contributed too less since August 27th, ofcourse by multiple users. He is just here to vote. Please declare his vote as null and void.

• Overturn / Delete No reason to by-pass a clear-cut consensus built for its deleting. As per nom, the article doesn't qualifies Wikipedia's ticle. rules & regulations to exist. --WikipedianBug (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• :Comment: Ah, the beauty of ad hominem arguments again. I don't think there's a material difference between 39 edits in a week and a dozen or so edits in two days. So if we somehow declare his !vote null and void (by what authority, I might ask?), what should we do to yours? Tim Song (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse for now with no prejudice towards a relist at any time. That AFD was nothing short of a train wreck. Let's get a clearer discussion at the least. MuZemike 06:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It must be kept. (119.73.2.138 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC))
• Reminder to people unfamiliar with DRV - we are not discussing whether the page should be kept or deleted, but the much narrower question whether the AfD discussion was closed appropriately. We don't sit as some sort of super-AfD. Please limit your comments accordingly. Tim Song (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without a delay If the DRV is to know wether AfD discussion was concluded appropriately or not the AfD page was also to know the article was notable or not (it wasn't), it was not to count votes for un-notable article. Please overturn the decission and deletethe article, otherwise, atleast re-ominate it for Deletion. Warm Regards --LineofWisdom (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Since no consensus was achieved, it is advisable to keep this page. (115.186.142.102 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC))
• Keep. The subject has remained a police chief of largest district of north-western province of pakistan and thus merits a mention. (202.69.15.29 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))
• Strange It is quite strange to see some Votes casted by I.P address to increase the tally. Administrators must have a watch on them. As far as largest district of NWFP is concerned, does it matters? What I am sure is that if the article, in any case, is allowed to exist, I myself, though not willingly, would created atleast 1000 more articles of different police officers around the world, who so far are non-notable. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

:*You can rest assured that the closing administrator will weigh this decision on the strength of the arguments and not the numerical tally. IP addresses are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia if they wish. And I think you would be well-advised not to threaten to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point; this will not help you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

::*If it was so, then why the closing administrator earlier seeked for a consensus, when it is proved and argued that the article is not notable. It is simply a polic officer's job as usually there is, in all cities of the world. --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

:::*It was certainly asserted that the article is not notable. It was not, however, proved. Further, the discussion was severely tainted. There was sockpuppetry; a user took it upon themselves to strike out an administrator's good faith opinion; and there were a sequence of remarks entitled "note to admin", which is a red flag for bad faith; good faith users in a debate talk to each other in an attempt to reach consensus. Talking to the closing admin in an attempt to have other users' opinions disregarded is not a collaborative, consensus-based approach to debate, which is why experienced Wikipedians never resort to this.

In short, this debate was not conducted correctly by either side and its conclusions are unsafe.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

::::*Agreed. An occasional "note to admin" on a procedural matter is perfectly acceptable. Using them to make arguments is not. Nonetheless, I'm still not persuaded that the closer clearly erred in deciding that the sock-free part of the discussion is sufficient to permit a merits closure, or that the closer clearly erred in assessing that part of the discussion. So, even though I would have probably voided this whole AfD, I am still of the opinion that the closure should be endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Admin. The admin is requested to look and consider the motive for nomination of this article for deletion and then a reappeal.. The persons have personal scores to settle. Thus, they are using these tactics to undermine the subject. (119.73.2.138 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

:*I've just remarked on these "note to admin" comments. Further, you are making an appeal to motive, which is a kind of logical fallacy. Please stop this silliness; it's unhelpful. We expect debate participants to talk to each other in a collegial manner like normal human beings, and make good-faith efforts to seek a policy-based consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

::* I am thankful for your comments S Marshall. They are really useful. To Mr. (talk, I would suggest to take part in debate, in favour of keeping or in suggestion of deleting, rather remarking something about user's faith. It, inny case, wouldn't make a notable into non-notable. Warm Regards, LineofWisdom (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. What is funny is that the socker voted on both sides. The closer was rightfully confused about the result. With that said, no prejudice against renomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Proper close as no consensus. Relist it if you like. And a gentle reminder that AFD and DRV are discussions. They are not votes. The side with the most comments doesn't automatically win. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Change to Keep Sufficient evidence that it was a bad faith nomination initially--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan (1), and the deletion review on it. Constant use of denigrating terms about the person, at the AfD and here also. Two major positions, both quite notable, and thus no apparent basis for the nomination in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)