- Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Notability was the issue for deletion last year. We have since found citations and sources to create a notable wikipedia page for this subject. Like to request undeletion for an improved and acceptable page for wikipedia on this subject. LennyBernstein (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is "we"? —Cryptic 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all endorse the original deletion from February last year. There's no way that discussion could have been closed with any other result. As for allowing re-creation, we'd need to see the sources first. Given that the draft was deleted under G4, ie substantially identical to the original delete article, it doesn't seem as though it contained more or better sources than last time. So I'd say no on re-creation for now, at least until we see the promised sources. Reyk YO! 12:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted Draft:Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky under WP:G4, and it was essentially identical to the deleted original article. The Draft had a "References" section in plain text as follows...
- "Siddiky, Kazemuddin Ahmad". banglapedia.org.
- Taifur, Muhammad, "A History of Dhaka", Dhaka, University Press Ltd, 1994, pp. 76
- Dr. Viraj P. Thacker. "The Darjeeling District: A Standing Legacy!". gms81.blogspot.nl.
- "St pauls school darjeeling :: Educationworld.in". Educationworld.in.
- Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. "9843207830, 9789843207830: The Compromised Republic An Inquiry into the Development of Underdevelopment 1st Edition: - 洋書 : Printsasia.co.jp". printsasia.co.jp.
- "The Daily Janakantha". dailyjanakantha.com.
- "Annisul Huq ahead in Dhaka North". bdnews24.com.
- "Court orders Irad's arrest in Tk 50cr case". bdnews24.com.
- "BBCBangla - খবর - বিএনপি নেতার মানহানি মামলা". bbc.co.uk."
- No links, no actual URLs, no inline attribution, mostly just names of publications. So essentially no sources at all, and no demonstration that the lack of notability has been addressed. In fact, the original article had all of these same references, properly formatted and linked, plus several extras. So even if the references in the Draft had been linked and checkable, they would still be weaker than in the original article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two sources I tried were easy to find [1] and [2] - this is a non_issue. They were in the AfD deleted article, so G4 certainly applies. Indeed, it looks like the draft was probably a copy-paste from a mirror or the like. CSD#G4 explicitly excludes draft/sandboxed articles that someone is intending to improve; it's not obvious to me there's some reason to believe that isn't the case. WilyD 13:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I've no problem with reverting the speedy deletion if LennyBernstein has some improvements to make, but it just looked like a badly formatted copy of the original. And WP:G4 specifically excludes "content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement ". This had not been moved or converted to Draft space and there was no explicit indication of improvement to come. If LennyBernstein had just come to me and asked, and convinced me he had improvements to make, rather than starting a deletion review of the original, it would already be undeleted. In fact, I would have been (and still am) prepared to make a Draft copy of the original article to retain the formatting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With the draft restored, I don't think there's anything else to do now, G4 certainly applies to the current version if it's in the mainspace. Lenny got sent here by the person who nominated it for AfD the first time around, so I don't think they're being unreasonable for an inexperienced user. But now, I think this is resolved. WilyD 10:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drafts, as a rule, should not be speedy deleted for being "substantively identical" to deleted articles — because draftspace is meant for creating and working on content that isn't ready for prime time yet, our rules don't work the same way in draftspace as they do in mainspace. Drafts are allowed to have problems that wouldn't be tolerated in mainspace, precisely because fixing problems with content is part of what draftspace is for. And since the creator had not submitted it for WP:AFC review yet, I see no reason to assume that they're acting in bad faith. So I have no objection to restoring the draft so that the creator can work on it some more — and if anybody believes there's a risk that the creator intends to just move the draft into mainspace themselves without submitting it for AFC review, we have the option of applying page move protection to it — but as the draft definitely wasn't ready for restoration to mainspace yet, there's no need for DRV to overturn the original AFD discussion on the original mainspace article. The draft will also, obviously, be deleted again at a later date if it hasn't actually been worked on. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am taking some time to collect citations to validate every piece of information that is written on the subject, so that the draft once ready for the mainspace will not have the notability issues or any other issue like before. Therefore, I only look forward to the restoration of the draft on draftspace, as clarified by Bearcat and only if it is found to meet the standards and rules of the Wikipedia, it can be decided whether or not to put it in the mainspace. I am still working on it. May I ask how much time is allowed to work on draftspace? Thank you. LennyBernstein —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In draftspace, unless you behave really problematically your "deadline" should normally be six months. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
