User:Tarun marwaha/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

On 15.04.2010 Mr. Radiofan had nominated the article- Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi for its deletion on the ground that the notability of this subject was not clear. On 22.04.2010 Mr. Ranakiri had suggested the re-writing of this article from scratch followed at least by one verifiable WP:RS source. And,Mr. Boing! said Zebedee had on the same day even offered to copy edit it to bring it in line with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS provided it survived the Afd process.

My article was deleted on 30.04.2010 by Mr. Sandstein who upheld the nomination made by Mr. Radiofan and the observations of Mr. Ranakiri.Of course,at my request Mr. Sandstein had later on very kindly userfied the article so that I could improve it for its eventual restoration to the main space. Since then I have worked on it,rewritten it from scratch, taken care of the neutrality and notability aspects, and have even sought a deletion review on 26.05.2010.I have tried to act on Radiofan's suggestions and reduced the article's length.For establishing the subject's notability I have clearly made a mention of eight secondary and tertiary sources that address the subject in detail, which sources are all reliable i.e.they allow verifiable evaluation of notability, and are independent of the subject who finds significant coverage in these reliable sources. I have based my article mainly on these eight sources.Those sources are:-

1)Budha Darakhat - book written by Dr.Zarina Sani M.A.Ph.D. of Nagpur University, published in 1979 - entirely devoted to the aim of examining and evaluating the life and works of Zia Fatehabadi with the intention of identifying his contribution and place in Urdu literature. She was not a relative or disciple of Zia Fatehabadi. http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Sani_Zarina_34069371.aspx

2)Zia Fatehabadi – Shakhs aur Shair – published in1977 and reprinted in 1983 - A collection of essays written by Malik Ram and several other noted literary personalities examing and evaluating the different aspects of the life and works of Zia Fatehabadi with the intention of identifying his contribution and place in Urdu literature. http://books.google.com/books?q=zia+fatehabadi+shakhs+aur+shair&btnG=search+books

3)Detailed editorial write-up alongwith many rare photographs, on Zia Fatehabadi’s life and works in Aaj Kal, Feb.1986 issue, Vol.43 no.7, published by the Govt of India Publication Division Urdu.

4)Zia Fatehabadi Number – Obituary Issue of Hamaari Zabaan Oct.1986 Vol.45 no.37 published by Anjuman-e-Taraqi Urdu Hind (Delhi) – contains numerous articles and views alongwith many rare photographs.

5)Obituary Issue of The Monthly Biswin Sadi Oct.1986 Vol.no.10 published by Biswin Sadi Publications (P) Ltd.- contains editorial write – up with rare photos.

6)Zia –e- Urdu, a special issue published by Saphia Siddiqui in Nov.1981 – contains several aricles written by noted Urdu writers of Britain on life and works of Zia Fatehabadi, with photos.

7)Zia Fatehabadi’s Thoughts – article written in English by Nilanjan Mukhopadhayay published in The Sunday Statesman 17.08.1986 issue alongwith photo.

8)Doctoral dissertation (1989) of Dr. Shabbir Iqbal M.A.Ph.D.of Mumbai University.

Additional information not made part of the article but essential for knowing the subject better:-

I do have in my possession certain books and articles written by the subject and written by others on the subject, they are all in Urdu. It is not possible for me to translate all of them to be placed before you. You have already cautioned me that I am not to conduct an original research but to stay neutral and simply establish his notability based on incontestable reliable sources. This I have done faithfully.

As is evident from the little material before me the subject had gained an eminent position in the Urdu literary circles and field, and also in his official life. His contribution is distinct. But, as has now become known the subject was by nature a reserved and publicity – shy person, he was not in the habit of projecting his own image and works, preferring to remain aloof, therefore, did not mix freely and mostly avoided attending poetry symposia etc. Yet, he was asked to be the Chief guest and preside overseveral seminars. Thus, the first Presidential address contained in his book," Masnad-e-sadaarat se ", was delivered on 27-01-1952 at Presidency College, Chennai, and the last one i.e.the 25th, on 19-06-1982 in Sapru Hall, Allahabad, as the Chief guest of Anjuman Ahal-e-adab. I have also been told that in his official capacity he had remained on the Board of Directors of some commercial banks as a nominee of the Reserve Bank of India and had also gone abroad as member of Government delegations. In fact to the Sunday Statesman (17-08-1986) he had talked about his strict service condition which did not give him liberty to publish his own works freely. It is only after his retirement from service of 35 years that a great bulk of his writings came to light. He had really rued the time he had lost.

As is reported on P.25 of " Aajkal " Feb.1985, we learn that on 06.03.1976 Zia Fatehabadi was conferred the title of " Siraaj-e-Sukhan " by " Adaaraa Bazm-e-adab ", Kamti,Maharashtra. 0n the same page the fact of the publication of " Muzaameen-e-Zia " (essays of Zia) and " Zia Fatehabadi ke khatoot " (letters of Zia Fatehabadi) has also been recorded but so far I have not been able to lay my hands on these two books and therefore do not know when they were published or by whom though I have included them in the main list.

Zia Fatehabadi's first poem was published in " Chaman ", Amritsar, in the year 1929 heralding his appearance on the Urdu literary stage. His first essay was published in " Adabi Duniyaa ", Lahore,Drama number of 1935 and his first short story " Andhere " in " Asia Weekly ", Agra in 1946. During 1935 and 1936 his translation in Urdu of " The trial and death of Socrates " was published serialised in " Monthly Asia ", Meerut and " Monthly Kanwal ", Agra." Aajkal " reports that he had also been a member of the Managing Committee of the Delhi branch of " Anjuman-e-Taraqi Urdu ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun marwaha ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Userfication of this article was the right step here and the article still needs more work before being moved into the main article space. While this subject may meet notability guidelines, the references in the current article are a confusing mess.-- RadioFan ( talk) 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia has a problem with systemic bias—we cover subjects well-known in English, but our coverage of even German or French topics is patchy and our coverage of non-European language topics, such as the one being considered here, is poor. Most Wikipedians lack the knowledge to assess articles of this type and I believe that input from another Urdu-speaking Wikipedian would definitely be helpful.

I agree with Radiofan when he says the subject may well meet notability guidelines, but it's somewhat hard to tell from this userspace draft. To me, those references appear ambiguous because they aren't in a conventional format specifying the work by ISBN. Quite correctly, and as requested in WP:V, Tarun marwaha has given us translations of foreign-language material, but the formatting of this is also unconventional; and the article is written in flowery and florid language quite different from the plain words style we're accustomed to on Wikipedia.

Generally I would say that once the references are formatted conventionally and the more literary wordings simplified (e.g. "breathed his last" → "died"), and subject to input from an uninvolved Urdu-speaking Wikipedian who can confirm the accuracy of the translations and the reliability of the sources, I would have no objection to this article being moved to mainspace.— S Marshall T/ C 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The flowery language is a big problem here and it continues to be a problem. I worked with this editor a bit a few weeks ago on this article and made similar suggestions but the problems remain. If some reliable sources can be identified clearly, preferably those available online and in English, others could help edit this article but at present it appears to be one editors efforts only. So in short we've got at least 3 editors other than the originator (perhaps 4) who feel that the subject mater could meet guidelines and who are willing to help bring this article up to Wikipedia standards but we still lack clear reliable sources.-- RadioFan ( talk) 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

KEEP THE ARTICLE. I know nothing on the subject matter; BUT I did a simple search in "google books" and the guy is VERY NOTABLE in the Urdu language. What seams to be the problem? Many articles are not written in correct Wkipedia fashion and they exist. This guy is notable and shoud have an article. Callelinea ( talk) 05:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This isn't a deletion discussion, the article hasn't been deleted, it has been moved under the original editor's user account for further refinement. This discussion is about whether or not the article is ready to be moved back into the main article space. If you read above I think you'll find that we are all in agreement that the subject likely meets notability guidelines but the current article isn't ready for main article space yet. There are concerns about the non-encyclopedic tone of the article and about the verifiability of the references. If you have specific references you feel would help create an article that meets notability guidelines, please share them here. Also if you do know someone who knows something of the subject mater, please point them here as someone with some expertise is needed here.-- RadioFan ( talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Sir,

I do not know whether I am permitted to contact you while the review is on. Please forgive my intervention. As I understand, presently the main concern is about the non - encyclopedic tone of the article and in particular about the verifiability of the references. Please consider this fact, the article placed before you has been my first attempt to post an article on the main space and I do admit I have erred and also learnt a great deal in that process.

Firstly speaking, I had drafted this article in accordance with the kind of English I had happened to learn at the school-level at which stage impressed by Dickens and Doyle I had become fond of using compound and complex sentences. As it truely is, I am not a regular writer of English prose, and therefore, I am not conversant with the different English styles, needs, etc. This will take some time.

Secondly , I have already said that the references I have drawn and relied upon are from the various books and periodicals which I could procure from the people who knew the subject and had kept preserved those published materials. And now, I assure you that the translation of the citations done by me is correct and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness.Only because the published material relied upon by me,whose complete particulars I have clearly provided in detail, are not online while they do exist, please do not conclude that the article is lacking clear reliable sources.Hereat, I must once again say that the article is certainly based on reliable third party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact- checking and accurracy, and this person was indeed the subject of (still readily available) published secondary and tertiary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject.Please forgive me for writing such a long note.Thanks. Regards. Tarun marwaha ( talk) 04:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• OverturnThe argument for deletion was basically that the supporting material was not in English. This is contrary to policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Move to mainspace Everyone accepts that the sources provided cut the mustard & we do not have any policy that says that notable articles must be perfect before going up. All the issues raised are not germane to whether we keep the article. AFD is not for cleanup and neither is DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and move to mainspace. Whatever was the case in the past, the article is now fine for general editing. Thincat ( talk) 10:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - Meh, we have wikis in other languages than English for a reason, y'know. The article is a rambling, stilted mess written by an obvious non-native English speaker, and I highly doubt that any fact-checking on the sources will be, or even can be, done by anyone here. "Inaccessible/poor references" was the reason given for the AfD close, and no rationale (apart from the usual "keep everything!" howls) has been given as to why that should be overturned . Tarc ( talk) 13:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mr.Tarc,Sir,

I have found your derisive statement - a rambling, stilted mess written by an obvious non-native English speaker absolutely disgusting. I was not aware of the ACTIVE COLOUR PREJUDICE current amongst certain highly rated esteemed members of Wikipedia Community. I am disappointed,to say the least. I am now wondering as to what made me venture into Wikipedia's exclusive area obviously meant only for native English speakers.Now,it matters little whether the article remains or not. I shall henceforth no longer take any interest.You will do me a favour by deleting it alongwith all its other traces.Also, I had posted an article - Seemab Akbarabadi and worked to improve Meeraji you may undo these contributions as well.Goodbye. Tarun marwaha ( talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

please do not leave. Everyone is free to express their opinion, but the opinion expressed by Tarc is only his personal opinion, and does not represent the opinion of everyone here. I agree some of the language he used was uncalled for, but your language in reply was as well. It will be much more productive to remain here, and improve the article--and the others also. I advise you, though, that though our clear policy is that we accept references in any language, it would be well to provide at least some sort of indication in a footnote for what the reference says, such as a key quotation of a few words; we English speakers do need some help with such things. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mr.DGG, Sir, Please forgive my outburst. Please accept my sincere apology. What really put me off is Mr.Tarc's opening sentence whereby he seems to ask people like me to stay away from English pages. I have since toned down the article and also added explanatory lines to the references. In any case, Wiki guidelines state that if all other aspects are deemed okay then Poor writing which term includes Poor formatting, should not be made the reasons for deletion of an article, deletion also means keeping the article away from the Main space. The remedy is clean up, this can be done, with the article remaining on the Main space itself, either by its author or by any one more experienced. This is what I have all along been emphasising, Mr. Thincat is of the same opinion and so are you. Haven't I rewritten and reformatted the article Meeraji which is on the Main space. Thanks. Regards. Tarun marwaha ( talk) 03:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I am sorry Tarc wrote in the manner he did. Moreover, I think most of what he wrote in terms of Wikipedia policy is wrong and your understanding of policy about deleting articles is correct. However, articles can be (and are) sometimes subject to severe criticism and this has to be endured. As I expect you know, personal attacks on other editors are not allowed (but are sometimes overlooked, for better or worse). Best wishes. Thincat ( talk) 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Move to mainspace per Spartaz. Hobit ( talk) 05:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Move to mainspace – perhaps Tarc was having a bad day. The person seems clearly notable and editors who find the prose stilted or rambling are free to do a spot of copy-editing. (I expect that English written in the subcontinent varies from the Queen's English, just as American English does.) Occuli ( talk) 01:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Just a comment. A number of Wikipedia editors seem to think that the English Wikipedia should be the preserve of native English authors and take offence at the notion that useful information can be provided by people with a less than perfect command of English but a sound understanding of the subject. Thanks to DGG for sticking up for content and inclusivity in more than one sense. Opbeith ( talk) 23:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Mark Prator ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Page not autobiography, all items verifiable, and on Wiki website for years. Undelete requested. 96.252.210.178 ( talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Absent some serious sourcing here. The consensus of the discussion was that this was an inadequately sourced BLP and as such the clear outcome of the discussion was to delete this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Relist (see below)- Aside from the nominator, only two people participated in the discussion. One was a comment, which attempted to provide sources, which wasn't addressed by the later delete voter. I know there's no quorum for AFD discussions, but with only one person other than the nominator arguing for deletion, and one person making a reasonable argument against it that wasn't addressed, I just don't see how there was any consensus to delete the article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Changing my vote to Overturn to no consensus- since looking back, my statement seems to support that more than it does a relist. Umbralcorax ( talk) 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Spartaz; it's not viable to keep relisting time after time and AFDs deserve some finality. Stifle ( talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFD doesn't have a quorum and since it was already relisted twice it's hard to reasonably imagine a third time would have really changed everything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus as per Umbralcorax. In addition, closer should have given little weight to the nominator's !vote, since it was based on a defective GNews search. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Despite the meagre participation, the end result is correct as this person is only name-dropped once in each of the 5 links provided by Bearian in the AfD, as would be fitting a fill-in band member. A no consensus will just lead to a 2nd AfD where the result will be the same, so invoke a bit of WP:IAR here and call it a day. Tarc ( talk) 13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, perhaps incubate though? I hate discussions with this little input and would normally push for an overturn to NC. However, it looks like it meets the requirements of WP:BLPPROD and so shouldn't have been around for so long anyways. I strongly suspect this article can be written (the guy has too long of a resume to think otherwise) and would prefer to see it moved to the incubator if possible. But I'm unable to find any non-trivial RSes and can't find a part of WP:BAND he can be verified to meet. Hobit ( talk) 05:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, it's too old for a BLPPROD. Still, an utterly unsourced BLP seems best to keep deleted. The sources I can find just aren't enough to come close to WP:N. 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

"It was suggested to me by the administrator that I follow this procedure. He statedas follows: Perhaps Ken Zaretzky does meet our notability guidelines. I would advise you to bring the matter to WP:DRV. You should detail exactly how Mr. Zaretzky meets the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. If you could provide links to back up the listings of Mr. Zaretzky's accomplishments, that would also be useful. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)"

"This was in response to my communication to him which was: "Hi Nuclear Warfare, I assume that you are an administrator. Thank you for your work with this article. Ken Zaretzky is a very important figure in the ADHD Coaching Field. How do I either appeal the deletion or get some help writing an article on him that will pass muster? I actually believe the citings were pretty good but maybe the article neeeds to be written differently. Thank you, in advance, Yesimhuman (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"There isn't a lot of coverage on ADHD Coaches at all, however in that field Ken Zaretzky, MCC is one of the very most notable. Here is what is out there. A newspaper article or two that he is quoted in. A magazine article about couples with ADHD in which he is the only coach quoted. Another magazine article about how an ADHD Coach can save a relationship in which he is quoted extensively along with a couple he was working with. Half of the couples quotes had the word "Ken" in it. 2 or 3 Radio Shows he has been on. There have been many more but I would have to search those stations archives to get the MP3's of those appearances. He was known for years as the "couples Guy" among ADHD Coaches and has given talks on that at both CHADD and ADDA (The worlds two primary ADHD Organizations) conferences on coaching coupled where one or both have ADHD and reports of those talks would certainly be in those two organizations Website Archives. He gave a presentation on ADHD Coaching at The International Coach Federations International Conference a couple of years ago (In St.Louis) That is the worlds leading Organization for coaches and some notice of that would be in the ICF's Website archive. He wrote a book on Coaching practice Development and he has given talks on that all over the country. Many of the reports of those talks will be in the organizations that hosted his talks website archives. He is the Co-Founder (Co-founding Father) of the ADHD Coaches organization. There is a link to a page in that organizations newsletter in which the president at the time referred to him as that. He is also a founding Board of Directors member of the Professional Association of ADHD Coaches which is a credentialling Organization and he is listes as that on thier board of directors page. There is a segment of a television show which has aired many times on PBS stations internationally which is on ADHD Coaching which features him as the ONLY coach and shows him working with a client. Also out of about 15000 Coaches credentialed by the International Coach Federation only about 600 hold the MCC credential (the highest) of them only about 6 are ADHD Coaches. He Also gave a talk on ADHD and Sleep Disorders titled "jetlag for Life" at the ADHD Coaches Organizations first international conference a reference to that is still on thier website. Wouldn't that establish notability for an ADHD Coach? Aren't different fields measured by different standards? What I am saying is that in HIS field he is one of the two or 3 most notable. If he isn't notable enough then the whole field gets pretty suspect. Shouldn't he be measured for notability in relation to the field he is in? He did found or co-found BOTH (This is quite proveable) organizations in his field. I could probably come up with more but most of that (not all) was cited in that article. For an ADHD Coach that is about as good as it gets. But if you were to ask ANY ADHD Coach and many life coaches the Question "who is Ken Zaretzky?" you'd get an answer without any hesitation. THAT is pretty notable within his field.

Can't notability for a professional be determined in relation to his profession? Please take a look at the citings if you could in the last article and let me what more would be needed (I thought that notability had been established within his field pretty well) and tell me what else would be needed? I'm sure it's out there and if I know what to get I'll get it. Thanks again in advance, Yesimhuman (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"

In addition to the citations that were in the original article I have located several more articles which back up most of what I have stated above. Please note that not all the "backup" still exists on the web. I will however give the following additional links and citations and what assertions they support. I do believes this very clearly and compelingly supports Mr. Zaretzky's notability within his field (ADHD Coaching)

This is a citation from a peer reviewed paper which was presented as a talk a the the Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD) international conference held that year in Nashville, TN

Zaretzky, Ken. "COACHING COUPLES" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Children and Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Renaissance Nashville Hotel and Nashville Convention Center, Nashville, Tennessee, Aug 27, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 < http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p116616_index.html>

This same talk was given by Mr. Zaretzky at the CHADD conference the following year in Dallas however I was not able to locate a copy of that paper (almost identical) on the web. That talk was also presented in 2005 and in 2006 at the Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA) conferences in Tucson Arisona and Orlando Florida. Sadly ADDA did nut maintain an archive of thier prior conferences, There is however a tape recording of his talk given at the ADDA conference in Tuscon (2005)for sale by a company that recorded all talks at the conference for ADDA.

it is located at : < https://www.ncrsusa.com/cgi-bin/store/search.html?id=It4jzpzI>

Mr. Zaretzky has given a many talks and workshops all over the country on His book on Coaching Practice Development titled "How Its Done 101" Which was cited in the original article. Sadly, once again many of the organizations where he presented this do not keep archives. However several do. I will provide linke to the announcements or reviews as follows: (Please not that he spoke three separate times at The International Coach Federation- New York City Chapter ICF-NYC, ALL of which are referenced below.)

ICF-NYC August 2006 http://www.icfnycchapter.org/newsletter/aug06_mid.html ICF-NYC September 2006 http://www.icfnycchapter.org/newsletter/sep06_mid.html ICF-NYC October 2006 http://www.icfnycchapter.org/newsletter/oct06.html

Georgia Coach Association (GCA) April 21 2007. This reference comes from the blog of the then president of GCA which at the time was thier only web presence. kttp://halliecrawford.com/careerblog/2007/resources-career/georgia-coach-association-april-2007-meeting-in-atlanta/

New Jersey Professional Coaches Association (NJPCA) February 2009 is a photograph of Mr. Zaretzky's Appearance http://www.njcoaches.org/PhotoGallery.html and thier february newsletter containing an announcement of the presentation: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs026/1101240925981/archive/1102452980329.html

Also documented and verifiable is his "How It's Done 101" presentation given at the Philadelphia Area Coaches Alliance (PACA) on Thursday, 5/21/2009 in Plymouth Meeting, PA : http://www.philadelphiacoaches.org/monthlydinnermeeting_may2009.html

HE also presented at the ADHD Coaches Organization in May of 2007: http://adhdcoaches.org/circle/from-the-president/

There were three radio shows cited in the original article. In addition he has made numerous appearances on other radio shows. Most frequently on Ann Babiarz radio show on WRLR AM The remainder of the citings and links were in the origional article. If you need copies of them please let me know and i will provide them immediately.

The primary reason why I disagree with the decision to remove the article on Mr. Zaretzky is that he IS in fact very notable in his field. He known nationwide and indeed worldwide. This clearly wasn't understood in the deletion discussion. As I stated there, he isn't notable for being in the beatles, or for having been a presidential candidate or for being a sports figure. He is an ADHD Coach. he has co-founded BOTH of the professional organizations in his field. he is published, quoted in at least one major market newspaper. Was quoted in one article in a general circulation magazine and quoted very extensively (nearly every paragraph was either him, or his clients talking about what he has done for them.) He was the subject (along with his client) af a segment of a PBS documentary show which has been shown on PBS stations all over several countries (answers TV). He is a regular invited speaker on his field at coaching organizations all over the united states. He has presented papers at international conferences a number of times. and the ADD test he created is linked to from hundreds of websites.

I respectfully appreceate your review and look forward to hearing your decision Yesimhuman ( talk) 14:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse; DRV is not for re-examining the subject, it is only for examining if the close was correct, and the closer correctly weighted the comments regarding the lack of signficant coverage of the subject; the given sources are generally passing mentions or trivial. Of course, this does not preclude the re-creation of the article if better evidence of notability can be unearthed. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Can the nominator please summarize his reasoning why the deletion process was not followed? Stifle ( talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Doesn't meet our inclusion threshold. Being quoted in the context of something doesn't make the individual notable. That happens when there is detailed coverage specifically about the person being quoted. This close looks like a good interpretation of the discussion against our standards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per lack of evidence that deletion process wasn't correctly followed. There's a reason that the DRV main page says in bold black letters "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, But the key word in there is simply -- if you disagree because there is mote evidence, or that the evidence wasn't considered fully, or was misevaluated by either the participants or the closing admin, then I consider that a DR is in order. WP is NOT BUREAUCRACY -- and I suppose we need an explicit statement that it is NOT COURT, and that we are interested in improving Wikipedia , not in seeing that rules get followed. A deletion discussion that leads to a clearly wrong outcome was improper--if the fault was in the contributors to the discussion, the admin shouldn't have closed it without a better discussion. An admin deleting (or keeping} an article that clearly shouldn't be delted (or kept) is making an error. But I don;t consider it clear that an error was made in this particular case. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

That said , there is no reason not to write a new article that will showthe notability more clearly.

• Comment I think with the new references the case could be quite strong. I also recognise that I am inexperienced at this sort of writing, formating, etc. I'd really be quite satisfied with it being improved. Earlier NW seemed to offer to help me write one that will use the resources better. If that offer still stands and it's ok with the administrators to redo the article I would like to accept it. Could you help me write a better one?

Yesimhuman ( talk) 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• • If you do so, I would suggest writing your new article in userspace first - something like User:Yesimhuman/Ken Zaretzky (if you click on that redlink you'll be given the option to create it). If you need any help I'd be happy to offer advice. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• • Thank you! I have a friend who is a very good writer. She has agreed to write the article (in userspace)and I would really appreceate you looking it over when she has finished it. Thank you again for your kind offer!

Yesimhuman ( talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC) reply