- Heer Da Hero (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The AFD I initiated was closed with a "keep" decision, but I've concerns. Some IPs (WP:LOUTSOCK) voted "keep" based on some WP:ROTM coverage, which I countered. And just before closure, @Libraa2019 voted "keep" without adequate time for source assessment., @Libraa has a history of throwing 'keep' votes based on ROTM coverage. If possible, reopening the AFD would allow me to assess the sources provided by @Libraa. I've always understood AFD closures to be based on policy, not vote counts alone, and this closure is demotivating. Fwiw, the page was also created and heavily edited by UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse:
reopening the AFD would allow me to assess these sources properly - how so? What prevents the appellant from doing this source assessment now? If the sources provide only ROTM coverage, what difference does it make whether they were provided by anon IPs or established editors? I don't understand the basis for this appeal.
- After being open for three weeks, the nomination failed to receive a single supporting !vote to delete. I don't see how relisting it for a fourth week will achieve anything beyond giving the appellant the opportunity to bludgeon that final Keep view. Even if all the Keep views are proven to have come from a single sock farm, this would still be closed as N/C. I'm okay with an early renomination. Owen× ☎ 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OwenX, OK, I'll do a source assessment here related to coverage provided by @Libraa. This also raises a question. If, due to a lack of participation, an AFD receives a few "keep" votes, who cite some coverage that doesn't easily satisfy GNG, should the decision be based on the vote counts and not on the source assessment and/or counter arguments? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the detailed source assessment. But again, what would you have us do with it? Even if none of those sources provides SIGCOV, what are we to do - relitigate the AfD? Overturn to N/C? I've closed several AfDs where you were the nom or a participant. It's clear that you have the best interests of the project in mind, but your style often comes across as unnecessarily confrontational. Your request to reopen this AfD, after it was relisted three times, strikes me as an attempt to have the last word in it, without any reasonable expectation of changing the practical outcome. I know being right is important to you, but using your time constructively is often more important. Maybe start a merger discussion (to 7th Sky Entertainment?), get other editors involved, and if no consensus is reached there, at least the next AfD for it might be better attended. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OwenX, In the past, I used to nominate AFD and then disengage, only to find them kept due to non-policy-based reasons that I didn't challenge at the time. So after returning from a wikibreak, I decided to engage in AFDs more actively, particularly when I feel that non-policy-based arguments or keep votes based on ROTM coverage would influence outcomes unfairly. My intention is to simply to ensure that decisions align closely with WP:N. And I want to clarify that I've been lately working to avoid being confrontational in my AFD interactions. Regarding the DRV, my main concern is highlighting the issue of how low participation can allow some IPs to rescue some pages so easily. That being said, if you feel this DRV was unnecessary, I'll leave it at that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I can acknowledge that you recently have, indeed, been more amenable to walking away from an AfD debate if it turns too acrimonious, and I commend you for that. But I can't recall cases where you were able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with you. Suggesting a viable ATD is often a good way to sway things away from keeping a page that isn't independently notable. Very few pages actually violate policy to the point where they need to be deleted. I know you only strive to ensure decisions comply with WP:N, but I'm not sure you're always going about it the best way. I don't think it was wrong of you to bring this to DRV. The topic of anon IP participation in AfD is worth discussing. But I still think a merger discussion, or failing that, renomination in two months, per Frank Anchor, would be more fruitful in this case. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OwenX, Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion) where I was able to build consensus, or win over someone who disagreed with me. But I think this might be an instance where an editor withdrew their keep vote after I countered it. Anyways, your comments were encouraging, and I appreciate that you acknowledged the topic of anonymous IP participation in AfD as worth discussing. I have no hard feelings about this page being kept, so this DRV can be closed now. No offense to @Doczilla: even though this comment was discouraging. I wasn't arguing with them; I was just providing counterarguments. P.S. I'm observing an AfD (where my !vote is neutral) where some editors are debating as if it's the end of the world. Cheers! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- re: "Honestly, I also don't recall (maybe because I nominate too many pages for deletion)"
- That might suggest one reason among many to not nominate so many pages. (Yeah, I split an infinitive.) AfDs need quality over quantity. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But Doczilla, I don't nominate every page I dislike—only those that apparently fail to meet WP:N and there's nothing wrong with that. Right? By the way, since Liz advised me, I've definitely slowed down; you can see it in my AFD logs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've kept thinking about this because I do appreciate your enthusiasm and I do want to help you be effective, so it occurs to me that this might be worth pointing out: Fewer editors have participated in AfD lately. We're having some discussions trying to figure out what might be done to help with that. In the meantime, though, the fact that fewer are participating means AfDs are getting relisted more often and more are closing as no consensus. It's about both the sheer number of noms (which you've addressed above) and the quality of those noms. Concentrating efforts on making a smaller number of stronger AfD nominations might (1) give editors clearer AfDs to discuss in the first place and (2) be less daunting to people who feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of AfDs listed. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken! I'll definitely slow down more if you think I should. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
|
| Source
|
Independent?
|
Reliable?
|
Significant coverage?
|
Count source toward GNG?
|
| https://www.24newshd.tv/3-May-2023/nadia-khan-gets-crazy-as-mad-over-drama-serial-heer-da-hero
|
~ 24News is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview
|
 This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established - clearly falls under WP:RSNOI
|
The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail
|
✘ No
|
| https://tribune.com.pk/story/2407480/ramazan-binge-list-five-shows-to-keep-you-entertained-post-iftar
|
~ Express Tribune is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI
|
This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established
|
WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG
|
✘ No
|
| https://dailytimes.com.pk/1079637/amar-thanks-the-audience-for-loving-the-alpha-hero-she-has-penned-in-her-serial-heer-da-hero/
|
~ Daily Times is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI
|
This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established
|
WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG
|
✘ No
|
| https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/30-Mar-2023/amar-khan-s-punglish-skills-in-heer-da-hero-impresses-fans
|
 Daily Pakistan is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line
|
~ CHURNALISM style coverage and falls under WP:RSNOI - Fwiw Daily Pakistan itself is not a RS
|
WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG
|
✘ No
|
| https://www.independenturdu.com/node/133401
|
Independent Urdu is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line
|
The coverage was published in the blog section (بلاگ) of Independent Urdu and was done by a blogger (بلاگر) so the expertise of its author has not been established.
|
The coverage discuss the subject in detail
|
✘ No
|
| https://jang.com.pk/news/1211032
|
~ Jang is an independent source- and coverage has a by-line but this particular coverage is based on an interview
|
~ How coverage based on interview can be reliable?
|
WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG
|
✘ No
|
| https://www.aaj.tv/news/30323593
|
~ Aaj is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI
|
This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established
|
WP:TRIVIALMENTION
|
✘ No
|
| https://lahorenews.tv/index.php/news/61302/
|
~ Lahore News is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI
|
This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established
|
WP:TRIVIALMENTION
|
✘ No
|
| https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199328
|
~ Dawn is an independent source- but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI
|
This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established
|
WP:ROTM coverage which doesn't discuss the subject in detail as require by GNG
|
✘ No
|
| https://www.easterneye.biz/amar-khan-being-her-own-hero/
|
~ Eastern Eye is an independent source- but this particular coverage is based on an interview
|
How coverage based on interview can be reliable?
|
Amar Khan - the actor of TV series themselves talked about the subject
|
✘ No
|
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
|
- Endorse this AFD was listed for three weeks and received no additional support for deletion and a single redirect vote. The keep votes are weak, but there is no WP:QUORUM to delete. No consensus would have probably been a reasonable close as well. Echoing OwenX, I do not object to an early re-nomination (including the above source assessment) no less than two months after the closure of the AFD (as if it were closed as NC) or a merge discussion that can take place at any time after this DRV closes. Frank Anchor 13:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - A case can be made that the closer should have discounted the IP !votes, and the close should have been No Consensus. That would still leave the article in article space. Keep is also a valid closure, either before or after throwing out the IP votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus which will allow for an earlier re-nomination - I know it is not a hard and fast rule there, but there really was no consensus to delete here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, correct assessment of consensus, the consensus leaned toward keeping the page, and a NC close would not have really changed anything in practical terms. Side note, random IPs are often active in Pakistan-related AfDs and they often agree with nominator's arguments (recent examples [1], [2]), claiming in this case they are socks is a strong claim which would had needed strong evidence. Cavarrone 08:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- When they can't justify keeping a page, they typically vote for deletion/redirection/merge etc. Otherwise, they simply vote to keep. Now, for example, there's this UK-based IP range calling for a t/ban on me (also see this and this), yet they're also casting delete votes in my AFD nomination. Strange, isn't it? @OwenX, fyi! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Junaid Khan (actor) brought me here, @OwenX, i would like to clarify, i am voting keep in only AFD's which are initiated by Saqib & that too with proper source presentation as i feel he may be dislike articles and nominate them without proper WP:Before. He has a strict policy regarding Pakistani articles which i respect but has a soft corner regarding his creations [3] [4] he contineously drafting new Pakistani articles despite of them meeting notability criteria. A current example is [5], that article had 29 sources but he draftified with a reason "No Source". Other examples are Draft:Na Baligh Afraad & Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning, both are feature films which received significant coverage on google and i respect his decision therefore did'nt touched that articles neither am i interested in such articles but using them as an example. You can check my history, he nominated all of my creations too. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Obviously. Read advice at WP:RENOM. Relisting is not a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The nomination did not gain consensus after a rather long discussion period so the status quo of the article being retained is maintained, and DRV can not do anything about this. Relisting won't produce anything. It's much better to renominate in the future.—Alalch E. 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
