Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 8

8 July 2024

Akshay Kharodia – Endorsed. It was examined whether significant new information has come to light since the redirection that would justify having this article again, considering the technical obstacle to its reintroduction that was imposed by consensus at AfD. The consensus of editors is that, while there is evidently some new information in the form of new sources included in the draft they were shown, the new information is not significant. If a review of new facts based on this draft is sought in this forum again, the draft should be suitable for a quick review, easily conveying significant new information such as may appear in the future. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Akshay Kharodia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The article was deleted and directed to redirect because it was unsourced. However, the subject has become notable now with his multiple lead roles in Kandy Twist, Pandya Store, Suhaagan (TV series) and his prominent role in Awasthy Vs Awasthy. I have created a draft Draft:Akshay_Kharodia which supports all these roles with reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES but a reviewer has rejected the draft. Please move the draft to the mainspace and relist it in AFD. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Endorse both the deletion at AfD and the rejection decline at AfC. None of the sources presented offer SIGCOV per GNG, let alone the elevated requirements for BLP. Most are Bollywood gossip column blurbs, or routine press releases. Whether they are reliable or not is beside the point, as they offer nothing in terms of notability. Pinging Robert McClenon who reviewed the draft. Owen× ☎ 10:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Endorse as closer, not much to say beyond I believe my close at the time accurately reflected the consensus of the debate, and the protection of the redirect was in line with both the protection policy and with the support of a number of participants in the debate. On the second matter at hand, I would tend to agree with OwenX above that the draft rejected at AfC does not meet the GNG criteria. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Comment - I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. A decline permits editing and resubmission. A rejection does not. It is true that I advised the submitter to obtain advice before resubmitting, because the title is a locked redirect that was locked due to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Duly noted and amended. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Endorse the AFD - Requesting Deletion Review of the deletion of an unsourced biography of a living person is vexatious litigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) We don't have a separate venue for contesting the declination of a draft at AfC, which I believe is what the appellant is seeking here, rather than contesting the deletion at AfD. While I believe their appeal is without merit, I don't think it rises to the level of vexatious litigation. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) The AFC Help Desk exists for submitters to ask about declines of drafts. Questions about drafts can also be asked at the Teahouse. I didn't say that the questions about decline of the draft were vexatious. It does appear that the unregistered editor is both asking to have the draft moved to article space and to have the AFD relisted. The latter is the vexatious appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Comment - I declined the draft because, in my opinion, it does not satisfy acting notability, which requires multiple major roles. The title is redirected to the major role in Pandya Store. I did not consider the coverage of their role in Suhaagan (TV series) to be sufficient, and paid very little attention to roles in series that do not have their own articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Endorse largely based on the comments of the AFD closer and AFC reviewer. The sources provided were not sufficient for a standalone article at the time of the AFD and still are not. I do not consider this request to be vexatious litigation as it appears to have been made in good faith. Frank Anchor 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.