From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
|
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|
*”’Delete”’ and ”’Salt”’ as issues described above. [[WP:MEAT|Meatpuppetry]] shouldn’t be tolerated for long. I can smell plausible [[WP:UPE|Paid editing]] (the image at infobox). –[[User:SaTnamZIN|SatnaamIN]] ([[User talk:SaTnamZIN|talk]]) 07:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
*”’Delete”’ and ”’Salt”’ as issues described above. [[WP:MEAT|Meatpuppetry]] shouldn’t be tolerated for long. I can smell plausible [[WP:UPE|Paid editing]] (the image at infobox). –[[User:SaTnamZIN|SatnaamIN]] ([[User talk:SaTnamZIN|talk]]) 07:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
*:*”’Response to Deletion Discussion,”’ I understand the concerns about notability and potential issues with sources, I’m not arguing against that point. I’d like to point out that I created the article in good faith, using reliable sources I found online. The editor of this article wasn’t plausibly paid; I worked based on those sources (@[[User:SaTnamZIN|SaTnamZIN]]). |
*:*”’Response to Deletion Discussion,”’ I understand the concerns about notability and potential issues with sources, I’m not arguing against that point. I’d like to point out that I created the article in good faith, using reliable sources I found online. The editor of this article wasn’t plausibly paid; I worked based on those sources (@[[User:SaTnamZIN|SaTnamZIN]]). |
||
|
*:Given the discussion agrees the article doesn’t show [[Susovan Roy]] as notable, I’ll accept deletion if that’s the consensus. However, I’d like to ask: Does it mean we shouldn’t use sources in making references anymore?! The sources used include news articles and databases. If there’s a specific issues with them, I’m open to feedback.(@[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]) [[User:Danjuma Anthony|Danjuma Anthony]] ([[User talk:Danjuma Anthony|talk]]) 10:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
*:Given the discussion agrees the article doesn’t show [[Susovan Roy]] as notable, I’ll accept deletion if that’s the consensus. However, I’d like to ask: Does it mean we shouldn’t use sources in making references anymore?! The sources used include news articles and databases. If there’s a specific issues with them, I’m open to feedback. |
||
|
(@[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]) [[User:Danjuma Anthony|Danjuma Anthony]] ([[User talk:Danjuma Anthony|talk]]) 10:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 10:08, 5 February 2026
- Susovan Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previously at AFD about a year ago, recreated recently and still does not show this person as notable. Several sources are just database dumps. One (The Northlines) is a WordPress site. Multiple other sources are obvious WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid/sponsored articles (generic bylines, over-the-top puffery). Do they meet WP:NACTOR? No reviews (let alone from a reputable reviewer) discussing them shows these continue to be minor parts at best. Still not notable. In the past, this has been created and recreated by Blogs19 socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogs19/Archive. I haven’t looked deep enough to see if this is also the case here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt as issues described above. Meatpuppetry shouldn’t be tolerated for long. I can smell plausible Paid editing (the image at infobox). —SatnaamIN (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
-
- Response to Deletion Discussion, I understand the concerns about notability and potential issues with sources, I’m not arguing against that point. I’d like to point out that I created the article in good faith, using reliable sources I found online. The editor of this article wasn’t plausibly paid; I worked based on those sources (@SaTnamZIN).
- Given the discussion agrees the article doesn’t show Susovan Roy as notable, I’ll accept deletion if that’s the consensus. However, I’d like to ask: Does it mean we shouldn’t use sources in making references anymore?! The sources used include news articles and databases. If there’s a specific issues with them, I’m open to feedback.
-
The discussion mentions some sources being database dumps or potential paid/ sponsored articles. I’d appreciate guidance on how to evaluate sources better for future contribution
(@Ravensfire) Danjuma Anthony (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
