Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyder Nawab (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. While not wholly promotional, it was a worse version than the deleted one, so I deleted per WP:G4-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hyder Nawab
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Deleted yesterday following Articles for deletion/Hyder Nawab, which was closed as soft delete (thus precluding WP:CSD), and recreated in a manner that does not address the concerns raised at that AfD. Namely, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY; the only claim to notability is being part of a noble house, with no evidence of independent notability found in a WP:BEFORE search and most content being family history. Complex / Rational 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India.  Complex / Rational  17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam and the reasons set out in the previous afd. I have also restored the CSD tag applied by Praxidicae just before the afd was opened as I think that's also a valid deletion avenue too, especially as there wasn't any expression besides delete in the previous afd. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag it as G11 because genealogical entries are not promotion per se and the language IMO is not unambigously promotional (I can see why one might tag G11 but to me it's a stretch). No concerns were raised at the old AfD about promotional language, but I can't be certain what the original article text was. Courtesy ping also to – apologies for removing the tag as Twinkle edit-conflicted; even though I wouldn't have tagged for G11, that was not intended as an objection.  Complex / Rational  17:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept the basis of the article's deletion rationale but I think it's reasonable to Prax (not least as a serving sysop) to decide whether to stick with their CSD tagging or let the afd run. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not WP:G11. Once CSD tags have been removed, by a reviewer, they should not be replaced. Feel free to incorporate the promotional aspects here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is however not only unimproved from the previous deleted version, it is, after comparison, "worse" than the deleted version.  WP:G4'd --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra: In fairness, ComplexRational has accepted that their edit conflict-removed the tag rather than being a conscious removal and without explicit explanation for doing so. Regardless, I see you opted to speedy anyway so you may close the afd. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (It still was not G11.) Would you like to know how long it's been since I closed an Afd? GAH. This the price I pay for OCD. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.