- Adeeb Ahamed (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The page Adeeb Ahmed was wrongly deleted through deletio discussion.
The two things respected reviewers, I would like to bring to your attention are
- The current draft of Adeeb Ahamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed is vastly different from the earlier deleted article in article for deletion process. A lot has changed and improved about as per recommendations including awards and credible sources.
- Secondly article for deletion discussion was faulty due to a mistake I made. I created the earlier article in the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed where as his actual name is Adeeb Ahamed. Since the wrong name Adeeb Ahmed does not throw up any sources it was deleted during deletion discussion. If the correct name was used instead, it would have given many independent sources to establish notability as Mr Adeeb Ahamed. Thank you for responding and reconsidering. (Kuruvillac (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Yes off-course.
Please could you check
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/lists/408686-indian-rich-list-2018-14-adeeb-ahamed
https://gulfnews.com/business/remittances-go-digital-1.1597425005076
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/banking-finance/443348-abu-dhabi-stimulus-package-to-mitigate-panic-says-lulu-financial-boss
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/business/425981-investing-in-the-future-adeeb-ahamed-managing-director-of-lulu-financial-group
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/retail/421501-turning-tablez
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/turning-tables-how-adeeb-ahamed-of-the-lulu-group-is-foraying-further-with-food-toys-and-fashion/articleshow/60136087.cms
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html
(Kuruvillac (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- If those are really the best sources, this is going to end up being endorsed. The independence and amount of editorial oversight in the first source isn't immediately obvious, but it reads like the sort of minibio that's solicited from and submitted by its subject. The second and third sources aren't about this person at all, and tell us essentially nothing about him. Sources #4-8 > 3. —Cryptic 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cryptic ,
Since I am not an experienced editor, I would not know which sources are very good and which ones are not applicable. This guy has a lot of sources. To put it in context it is like selecting sources for Bill gates, Elon musk or Jeff Bezos. They are too many of them. Hope you would overlook my inability to discern which is good and which is not. Thank you for your prompt response (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- This is a tricky one. The AfD discussion was in m y view not a good one, with little real analysis of the sources offered, and apparently noi WP:BEFORE search (the nominating editor was a blcoked sock). But the only voice favoring retention dumkped a huge number of very mixed sources as bare URLs, with no indication of what they demonstrated, and no selection. That is not much of a basis to retain the article, and i can't see overturning that AfD on that basis. The draft linked above has been rejected, which normally means that it will not be considered further. I don't think that rejection was justified, but that is not strictly in scope for deletion review. Based on the last three sources clinked above, I think this person is probably notable and a valid article could be written, but it would take some significant improvement on the current draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the big issue with new people editing at Wikipedia. Understanding our inclusion guidelines is really really hard. But read WP:N carefully and try to identify sources which:
- Aren't controlled by the subject and aren't tied to the subject (his work place, etc.) and have reasonable respect as a news source.
- Cover the subject in some detail (biographical information, etc.)
- Don't feel like a press release.
- If you can identify 3 to 5 such sources we can probably evaluate them and give you feedback. [3] for example feels like a press release (no author credit, only praise). [4] is a bit better, but still feels like it was paid for (and there is a disclaimer at the bottom...). I just don't think you have sources yet. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hobit ,
As requested I have added 5 sources. Please see if it fits the bill.
https://www.timeskuwait.com/news/gold-card-granted-to-adeeb-ahamed-md-of-lulu-financial-group/
https://www.gulf-times.com/story/635428/Adeeb-Ahamed-honoured-as-NRI-Businessman-of-the-Ye
https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/nri-businessman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kbf-board/1822515
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html
https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/business/qatar-business/388458/lulu-exchange-md-honoured-with-global-businessman-award-at-brand-icons-2016
Thank you (Kuruvillac (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm afraid you then still have problems. These all appear to be press releases. There is no byline on most of these and they all read like a press release. It can be hard to find solid sources on business leaders. You are basically looking for actual reporting about that the person has done. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I Rejected a draft, Draft:Adeeb Ahamed, on 21 August, citing the AFD that is now being appealed. I said that the submitter should do one of:
- 1. Obtain a copy of the previously deleted article for the reviewer to review to verify that the new draft was substantially different from the article.
- 2. Point to new achievements by the subject since June 2020, the time of the AFD.
- 3. Appeal to DRV to overturn the deletion.
- So here we are. The submitter said something about the spelling of the name of the subject. We appear to have considered two possible transliterations of the name, so that doesn't seem to be a concern.
- Pinging User:Eternal Shadow and User:Timtrent, who also reviewed the draft before I Rejected it.
- When the appellant has been asked for three best sources, they have provided URL dumps with 8 and 5 sources.
- I have not reviewed the original AFD in detail and am not yet providing my !vote on it.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and Oppose allowing this draft to move forwards I have looked again at the disastrous set of referneces on the draft. I stand by WP:BOMBARD and will not review them individually. I woudl not accept this draft as it stands today.
- Then I looked at the "three" references chosen by the appellant. Most are PR, Press Releases or regurgutated PR. Of the remainder:
- https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987 has commentary beside the ubiquitous interview with the pricipal, but is very advertorial. I would rate it as borderline acceptable, but on the wrong side of the border. There are no other references that I find even as credible as this one.
- This exercise of asking for the top three references has failed. The appellant is still bombarding us with trash instead of references. I find I have no interest in whether this draft is substantially different because it is simply not publishable.
- It requires a fresh start written around good references. Let me remind the appellant: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
- This fails. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good grief. There are five more references. I looked at the earlier set! Ok, one is common to the prior set, so there are four more. I ran out of enthusiasm, but I looked at each of them. Seems he now has a gold residency card and has won an award. I know I should be marginally more charitable, but I am losing faith that the appellant understands how to edit Wikipedia. I would only be persuaded to change my opinion by a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Fiddle Faddle 17:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Timtrent, Hobit,
As Timtrent mentioned he is a gold card holder of UAE. People familiar with Middle East know it’s a very select honor given to few few businessmen.
I gave 5 sources since the respected reviewer asked for 2nd time best of 3-5 independent sources.
As Robert McClenon mentioned , I stick to my stance that the initial article in Wikipedia space was deleted because instead of the correct name “Abeeb Ahamed”, I used the wrong name, “Adeeb Ahmed” which has no sources in search. If I didn’t commit this mistake, the article might not have been selected for deletion review in the first place since to the large number of sourced available and even if if was, it might have survived. So I humbly maintain the initial deletion was faulty due to my mistake, resulting in other reviewers not finding any sources on search (Kuruvillac (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- @Kuruvillac: I have told you what will persuade me to change my mind. From what I see from comments above it is likey also to persuade others. Set the past aside. Set the present aside. Write the future. Write a very brief, tightly written, well referenced draft with three cast iron sources and precisely no fluff and clutter. Tell me, us, when you have, please. It will be a game changer if you acheve it. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this is way outside the remit of a deletion review. This is run of the mill AFC stuff. I suggest it be closed with advice to the appelant. Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the close of the AFD. This isn't a request for permission to submit a draft for review, because the draft has already been submitted and rejected, so that this Deletion Review has to be an appeal of the close of the deletion discussion. (DRV is not used as a procedure to appeal a decline or rejection in AFC.)
- The issues with regard to the AFD can be any irregularities in the process, and the judgment of the administrators. The only procedural issue is that the nomination was originally made by a sockpuppet, but an administrator took note of that and stated that the AFD had merit, which was consistent with the multiple Delete !votes that had been cast when the nominator was blocked. The first would-be closer chose to Relist after multiple Delete !votes and only the author/appellant arguing to Keep, so the close was not hasty. The eventual closer looked at five Delete !votes, several of which raised concerns about paid editing. If the author is not a paid editor, the quality of the writing is similar to that of some paid editors. The close was correct.
- I respectfully disagree with one editor that this is outside the scope of a deletion review. It is just outside the scope of a sound deletion review. It is also no longer run-of-the-mill AFC stuff, because the AFC draft has been rejected.
- The appellant's argument that an error in transliteration has caused an incorrect result has been considered, but is silly. The appellant claims that because of the transliteration, the reviewers didn't find relevant sources. First, both spellings have been considered. Second, the responsibility is on the author to provide the sources. They have provided too many low-quality sources. The transliteration issue can be dismissed.
- The author didn't make the case with walls of text at AFD, and isn't making the case with walls of text at DRV.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Timtrent,
How can I prepare a crisper and Wikipedia compliant draft when Robert McClenon has put a stop on my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed
Also as I had earlier mentioned by article on Adeeb Ahamed was wrongly deleted the first time through deletion review since it had enough merits to pass notability test. If a method of consistency, meritocracy and fairness was followed to evaluate the first article, it would have passed the notability test. Unfortunately I don’t have any affiliates as a new comer in Wikipedia to give voice to my opinion. Thank you for you suggestions.
(Kuruvillac (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you User:Timtrent,
As per your instruction I will prepare a crisper shorter new draft as best as I can. Hope Robert McClenon is okay with this idea.
As far as earlier source count goes. There were two requests, one was for best 3-5 sources which I was complaint with. The first time I erred by providing more sources as there was a plethora to choose from and I thought it would better to err on more than less. As I had explained the reason earlier, I would not want to repeat myself but thank the reviewers in the thread who got what I meant and empathized with me. Thank you Again. (Kuruvillac (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- Kuruvillac It is not an instruction. It is the only way you will achieve a decent draft (0.9 probability). No editor needs to approve your creating a further, and different draft. It is clear that the current draft is rejected, thus any new one needs to be substantially different, with better quality references, but not a vast quantity of them. If you need advice I am happy to help, but not here in this discussion. Your own talk page, or the talk page of the new draft are each appropriate locations. If I offer advice in either location I will recuse myself from revieiwng the draft. My final advice to you here is to write very tightly worded and brief text with three solid references in reliable sources that are significant coverage and are about the gentleman. Do not stray beyond establishing his notability and referencing it. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S Marshall,
As per the recommendation of reviewers in this forum , I have created a new draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed_(businessman). Please check (Kuruvillac (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
|
