Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 31

< July 30	Deletion review archives: 2008 July	August 1 >

31 July 2008

Prem chand pandey – Deletion endorsed – Davewild (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Submitting on behalf of Ashok rp, no opinion yet from me GRBerry 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added links for deleted article Imtial -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I got proper time then I will try to write article Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Founder Director, NCAOR, I asure you Dr. Prem C. Pandey, IIT Bombay is another person and Prof. Prem CHand Pandey, Emeritus Professor IIT Kharagpur is retired person from NCAOR, Goa as a Foundation time director when only official land was aquired and no single quarter was there in 1997. and in 1998 it is officially registered ans NCAOR, goa. He was HOD of MOG group SAC/ISRO, Ahmedabad upto 1996. I have not used single link of PC Pandey, IIT Bombay, but may be repeated link for Prem Chand Pandey it may be improve.

Prem chand pandey student of Allahabad-1972, belongs ISRO/DOD/IIT Kgp and [ http://www.ee.iitb.ac.in/~pcpandey/Prem C. Pandey] belongs IIT B and was student of BHU and junior in edge some unexperienced person have used all refernces of Prem chand pandey in this article As Allahabad resident academic person having back ground in Purvanchal I am familiar with activities of Dr. Pandey

i thinks all references in case of Prem chand pandey is belong with Earth and planetary science discussion or environmental or oceanographic related centres discussion and much more related ecxactly refernces as NCAOR director as you will not get single references of NCAOR, Director Dr. PC pandeyProf. Prem Chand Pandey and Second and present Director Shri Rashik Ravindra on any google web page serch or you can take personally the history of Director ships at NCAOR. yes Bhaskar Rao was workink director for some time there after retirement of first director Dr. P.C. Pandey.

Then why you hesitate if pc pandey's iit bombay's reference I have not submitted to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs)

That is hardly comprehensible, but I gather that we once had at Prem C. Pandey an article. Its lead pointed at Dr. Prem C. Pandey of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay [1], but much of the rest at another scientist of the same name, Prem Chand Pandey, Emeritus Professor, Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences of the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur[2]. This rather incomprehensible article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem C. Pandey and later protected. Now an article at Prem chand pandey about the professor from from IIT Kharagpur, has been deleted as repost, incidentally by the same editor who originally nominated the AfD, who in any case still needs to be notified of this thread. This speedy deletion is now being contested. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have parsed the request correctly. It was misfiled on the DRV/Active instead of the daily log, so I moved it here. Looking at the protection log, it was also in February recreated at Prem Chand Pandey, and deleted under WP:CSD#G4 there. Full set of links at the top now. GRBerry 14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One part of the passage above reads I will try to write article Prof. Prem Chand Pandey, Founder Director, NCAOR. It seems that we're being told this is not the same person as another Prem C. Pandey. ¶ Prem C. Pandey was largely and I think exclusively about the person at NCAOR. (Hard to be sure, because it was in such idiosyncratic prose.) It was deleted as the result of an AfD. Prem Chand Pandey and Prem chand pandey were largely and I think exclusively about the person at NCAOR (same caveat); both were deleted as re-creations of the article deleted via AfD. ¶ Like Tikiwont and GRBerry, I don't understand the appeal above. However, if it is "The article titled Prem C. Pandey was about somebody who didn't work at NCAOR but I want to write about somebody who did work in NCAOR", then my response is no, the first half of that is factually untrue. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. (Remind me - my only involvement has been to protect Prem C. Pandey and Prem Chand Pandey - yes?) Before we look at the article, could I have an explanation of the apparent sock puppetry: Ashok rp and Ekbal anuj seem to be very similar in their activities. But to latch on to one small point: do I take it that the article proposed for restoration is similar to that currently at user:Ekbal anuj? That article refers to the Pandey in question having won the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievment Medal. The AfD discussion also mentions it. It seems to my simple and confused mind that the article being proposed for undeletion is about the same person as was discussed at the AfD. The AfD was pretty unanimous, there is no claim that the person has become notable in the last six month, so - endorse deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless a more comprehensible rationale for restoration is advanced. Ideally such a rationale would include details of which of the criteria at WP:BIO this person/these people meet(s), and citations from reliable sources that verify that. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashok has provided on his talk page a user draft that I moved to User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey and invited them to comment here further. Basically he says that the Emeritus Professor at IIT Kharagpur, former NCAOR director and NASA medal winner should be notable enough for an article. I agree with RHaworth that this is the person previously discussed at AfD, though, but I will abstain here from an opinion. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Assuming the article in question is User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey. This could possibly be a suitable article, justifying a move to mainspace, but not yet. Clean it up. Be sure that the best independent secondary sources covering the subject are cited in the lead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you the entry it may be from old resources or new but if there are many person's are in notable list or in emeritus professor list or SSB Award list or NASA award list of wikipedia, then why Dr. Pandey's names should not be any where. I accept that in his main time he refused offer of NASA people to work for NASA but is in this global world America is not getting any benefit from India Human Resources, which was produced by Dr. Pandey like people. I was doing research on psychology of general wiki commented people on Dr. Prem Chand Pandey, they not know Indian Culture is oldest in the world and he belongs an oldest historical family of Indian Brahmin and he don't give extra value to any country's people. It was his drawback in other peoples eyes who are like a bubble in the modern world having no knowledge of brain power of Indian people and alway not seeing back the American History and only treating which american supported people well tell that will be only true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please another person about which page you have confusion he have nothing to do with earth snd environmental science and he is electrical department professr in IIT Bombay and BHU Product. Prof. Prem C Pandey's profile [3] PCpandey iitb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see Professor Prem Chand Pandey(Dr. P.C. Pandey),Emeritus Professor IIT Kharagpur, retired (Founder Director) NCAOR,Goa and University of Allahabad and SAC/ISRO Polar Remote Sensing Scientist he have nothing to do with electrical department. [4]and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok rp (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Seems enough evidence here that a speedy wasn't appropriate, and should at least have been an AFD. And perhaps not even that if the publications are as valid as they seem. Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was an AfD. Look, a series of usernames and IP numbers, all writing in a single, distinctive style, have repeatedly been writing long and only intermittently comprehensible articles on one Prem Chand Pandey of NCAOR. You can see one of these even now at User:Ekbal anuj. The AfD was closed (by User:Bongwarrior) with "allow for possible future re-creation" but I presume that this was hurried shorthand for "allow for possible creation of an article on this person that intelligibly describes achievements that are not discernible here". -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That AfD appears to be for a different individual. According to the archive.org cache the article the previous article was for a professor in Electrical Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay in Mumbai. That page references his bio and the previous page also notes that he is at National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research in Goa - but that seems erroneous, and is an odd place for an Electrical Engineer, and is not at all mentioned on his bio. This new article seems to be for a professor in Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur which is confirmed by his bio. They are clearly two different people, and the AfD was for a different person so the Speedy was not appropriate. That the original article had an error with the NCAOR information seems to be part of the problem. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good sleuthing! But in the state in which I found the article immediately before I slapped the AfD template on it -- this state (unfortunately only visible to admins, who should also see the article history) -- the bit about the electrical engineer was pretty much unchanged and the huge majority was instead about Ashok rp's favorite, as even now written up here. Don't take my word for it, ask another admin to check. (Unfortunately Pandey's deletion seems to have predated Deletopedia and Deletionpedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yet another example of why this should be an AfD instead of a speedy. Your asking us to debate whether the article is valid, without letting us see the evidence; it just doesn't work. We don't have to accept the article. All we have to do is reject the speedy, and then judge the article on it's own merit - possibly with an AfD. I don't disagree that something might be amiss here. Perhaps we should not be restricting deleted articles to only a few people. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Would you like "temporary review"? If so, just say which form you'd like it in, and I or somebody else hereabouts will oblige. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Presumably starting point for restoration would be User:Ashok rp/Prem Chand Pandey? Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is pretty typical of the other versions, yes. But again, if you want "temporary review" of any of the others, just say so. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok rp (talk)Now it will be clear what I have mensioned about Dr. Pandey's special co-operation in CORALs Department of IIT Kharagpur please see his involvment in all sponsored project list taken by CORALs IIT Khargpur Project list of CORALs IIT Kharagpur —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion - The speedy deletion was appropriate because the new version does not adequately address the deficiencies of the original, although it is a slight improvement. When I stated "allow for possible future re-creation" in the original AfD, I had hoped for a more concise, understandable version. Both versions of the article are so muddled that whatever notability exists is completely obscured. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This is part of a walled garden of articles promoting this individual and a small closed circle of family members, largely the work of Dr. vivek Kumar Pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated accounts (read sockpuppets), of whom Ashok rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would seem to be but the latest. Serial vanispamcruftisement, enough already. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rielle Hunter – Keep deleted, consensus did not agree with restoring the userspace version – Davewild (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have a draft available for the article. I would like the article to be unprotected so that I can edit it. I am submitting the request here following the suggestion of RHaworth. David.Kane (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wrong way round! First tell us why you think there should be an article on this title. You can edit your existinbg draft. Unprotection is "automatic" if the decision is "re-instate". Anticipating a proper nomination, my view is: no opinion. I am pretty apathetic about politics here in the UK and as for American politics - yawn. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be an article on this subject because she is notable. See WP:BIO. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Consider all the secondary sources that mention her. Now, it is true that the main reason for her notability (the alleged affair and child) should not (pending better/other sources) be included in the article. But that does not change the fact that the subject is, in fact, notable. David.Kane (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a high potential for BLP/coatrack problems here. I've taken the current second sentence out of the book article twice because the source used is inadequate (partisan blog, referring to internet archive for something deleted from web, yet the internet archive link in the blog is not (now?) working). The more significant claim to notability is related to a politician article protected or semi-protected for almost the entire last week due to allegations involving this individual - and the editorial consensus was not to mention this name in that article. Unless you can demonstrate an article that clearly passes BLP muster and has enough other material to handle discussion of the allegations without becoming a coatrack, I'm not going to support this. GRBerry 06:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely that there is a high potential for problems here. But such potential is not reason enough to prevent an article if the subject is notable. I would be happy to lock down this article immediately or if problems develop. I agree that the editorial consensus at John Edwards was not to mention Hunter's name, which is why there is nothing in my draft which connects Hunter to Edwards. I also agree that the second sentence is problematic for the reasons you give. I will work on better sourcing. I am happy to have that sentence removed in the initial version. If Hunter is notable (and she is) and there is an editor willing to write an article which meets Wikipedia guidelines (and I am), there I do not see a reason to not have an article. But I am also an inexperienced editor, so if there is some section of the guidelines that relates to this, please let me know. David.Kane (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way to show that coatrack won't be a problem is to provide (well-sourced, of course) a significant body of unrelated content. She is only notable by Wikipedia standards if you can find significant coverage that is primarily about her. GRBerry 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notability standards do not require me to find "significant coverage that is primarily about her." I need only show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have done that. It does not matter that these articles are not "primarily about her." David.Kane (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration at this stage. The subject does not pass WP:BIO because the draft article does not provide references to reliable sources covering her in adequate depth. So far, she seems to be notable only through her alleged involvement in an alleged political affair. Per WP:BLP1E, she should be covered only in the context of our coverage (if any) of that affair. Sandstein 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:BLP1E is problematic for my case. I guess it comes down to whether or not she is involved in "one event." Monica Lewinsky, Donna Rice and Ashley Alexandra Dupré (to pick the first three examples that came to mind) are only notable for their relationships with famous politicians. If those articles belong in Wikipedia, then surely one about Hunter does. What makes their cases different? Wikipedia is already providing "coverage (if any) of that affair." So, the lack of such coverage is not a reason to deny this article. David.Kane (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration at present, as per WP:BLP1E. You may note that our coverage of the situation is quite limited at the moment, specifically because mainstream media hasn't really picked it up and the world would lurch to a halt if we were to use the National Enquirer as a reliable source. The sandboxed article, moreover, does not assert notability, to my view. Outside of the allegations, she's not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration, I guess. The sandbox version of the article doesn't show how she's notable. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, possibly redirect to Story of My Life. Agree with Tony Fox. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration as per above. As an answer to WP:BLP1E, try showing that you name should be mentioned in at least two other wikipedia articles. The claim is that she is notable because of her connection to John Edwards, yet her name doesn't appear on that page! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration - As others note above, this is a coatrack/POV magnet that serves little useful purpose. Though she's been thrust into the spotlight by tabloid accusations, she has no true encyclopedic notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Favour restoration Like David Kane, i think that there should be a Rielle Hunter (Lisa Druck) article. In addition to her work as a film-maker, and the alleged current connection to John Edwards, we also have the notability of her connection to the 1988 roman a clef novel Story of My Life written by her then-lover Jay McInerney: This well-known author has gone on record that the book's main character, named Alison Poole, was based on the real-life Druck (now Hunter). Google has 171,000 web pages on the search term <"Rielle Hunter"> in quotes, plus 6,020 for <"Lisa Druck"> in quotes, as well as 4,650 for the combined <"Lisa Druck" "Rielle Hunter"> together with each in quotes. To put the 171,000 "Rielle Hunter" pages in context, "Elvira Mistress of the Dark" produces a comparable 166,000 hits and Cassandra Peterson / Elvira has a Wikipedia entry. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being the subject of a popular novel is generally enough for us to write an article on said person unless there is evidence that the person is well known because of it, which I don't see from current sourcing. The only reason why people seem to care about who she is is because of the JE controversy. I'm sure you'd find countless novels with real life people as an inspiration most of them without articles on the people because the people were never/are not notable Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The is a fast moving controversy, so let me provide some updates. First, I have fixed the sourcing on Hunter's role as inspiration for the Alison Poole character in Story of My Life. Thanks to GRBerry for pointing this out. Second, she now appears in that Wikipedia entry. (And was not added there by me.) So, she passes a baseline level of notability. Third, now that Hunter has been linked to Edwards by McClatchy, it may be appropriate to add that as well to the (draft) entry. Thoughts? David.Kane (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirecting to John Edwards love child allegations. Kelly ^hi! 04:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ..which has now been speedily deleted as an attack page, a deletion which could well spawn its own DRV discussion. --Stormie (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the consensus at ANI was that article was not an attack page, and the article has been restored as John Edwards paternity allegations - though that is currently at AfD. Consensus seems to be leaning toward "keep", though it's still early. Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration. The brevity of the proposed article should make it clear that she is a non-notable person; WP:BLP#1E applies here. Furthermore, as others have said, such an article would quickly become a WP:COATRACK and a magnet for vandalism. Ms. Hunter doesn't need this article, and neither do we. Terraxos (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.