Talk:Ravi Jadhav

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because, this is a notable film personality, national award film director, film was commercially successful too. If the tone not acceptable, necessary editing may be done. Deletion isn't the solution. --Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In this case, there was a non-spam version to revert to, so I've done that. But stuff like "He was one of the most creative Directors in Marathi film Industry" is totally unacceptable fluff, not to mention the massive laundry list of films with a huge list of "Look why they're great!" stuff next to them. If this hadn't had a non-spam version to revert back to, I most certainly would've speedied it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: Not sure if it's appropriate for me to speak here now. The reality is that the article was written with liberal usage of superlative adjectives, which is frowned upon here on Wikipedia, as you may know, Yogesh. You are right when you say "Deletion isn't the solution," but prevention is better than cure, don't you think? Pardon me if I'm being blunt here, but this is not social media. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 06:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

this is how the article looked when I edited it last (IMO), neutral enough, however as every one is aware, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and a perpetual WIP, editors add and remove material. Instead of tagging for deletion it is more efficient to make necessary changes oneself. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That is 2013. You misunderstand my point here. I'm sure that you have been watching this page since the last time you edited it, unlike me. So, when collaborators were adding/removing content, had you (or other watchers) shown the earnestness that you showed today, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I think it just proves the point that you yourself MIGHT have turned your head when this personality's article was being riddled with adjects. That is one of the many reasons why Wikipedia has the speedy deletion feature. I am not accusing you of anything, but only praising you for at least taking part in this discussion. Since I will also be watching this page now, suffices to say that we wouldn't have such problem in near future. Let's make this a better place. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 12:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The page is on my watch list, like the over 400 other pages and more that I have created. However I am not able to patrol the page as well as it ought to be done. And even when I do come across gross violations of policy all I do is revert once and then leave without more edits as I myself am under a topic ban and so do not have the stomach for more debates which tend to escalate into acrimony many a times. As an example see this comment I made, also see the history of the said article and the ping pong editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

All valid reasons, but if you expect other editors to monitor the page for promotional edits, then they expect the same from you. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 08:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I only wish that due diligence be employed in relatively important actions such as tagging for speedy delete. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Which was very well considered here, but people have vested interests. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand, in this particular case it would have been more productive imo to look for acceptable neutral versions of the article as against speedy delete tagging it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Which was carried out after some time was invested into it by two other editors. An exercise which could have been averted. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The project is collaborative in nature by definition. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)