Talk:Ghadiya

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Primary topic?

I'm going to recreate this tweaked version of the dab page. The Hindu unit of time is ghatika, it's mentioned in the linked article, and the term ghadiya is simply an alternative name for it (See the AfD for the explanation, or have a look at sources like these [1] [2] [3], where the term is clearly used with the same meaning.)

There's also one topic potentially with the name: Abu Ghadiya. Now, that's just a WP:PTM, but the Ghadiya bit looks a bit like a surname, so it's possible that readers might search using just that term. Also, I don't like the idea of redirecting to a long list of units of time and having a hatnote there just for this particular term. Therefore, I believe the status quo – dab page at the primary title – works best.

Pinging participants in the AfD: Bejnar, Bungle, Double Plus Ungood, PamD, KylieTastic, in case there's a primary topic consideration that I'm missing. On an unrelated note, there's also one person with the name Ghadia mentioned in a list at Australia men's national handball team; in principle, that would be an eligible entry for a "See also", but there's no substantial content about him there, so I don't think we should be providing navigation. – Uanfala (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: do think that it was presumptuous, immediately after the deletion discussion which chose the redirect to the militant, to reinstate the two item disambiguation page, rather than place a "Redirect" hatnote at the Abu Ghadiya article. At least without further discussion first. I have placed a hatnote there, q.v.. --Bejnar (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole situation is ridiculous. The AfD close was ridiculous and it's ridiculous that we're having this discussion here. Why am I even wasting my time with those silly dab page if that's not going to matter the slightest bit? – Uanfala (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I search on Google for "Ghadiya", the first result is a village in India. So, I've created a quick stub for it. Now I'm going to proceed with recreating an expanded version of the dab page and I hope we can all finally go home. If somebody still believes the militant is the primary topic, feel free to start an RM (but see the following section). – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: I agree, this is ridiculous. It's a dab page that will probably get 3 pageviews per year. I truly don't understand why you're making such a fuss over it. Perhaps you don't understand how the deletion process works here on Wikipedia. I'll explain it to you. When a page is brought to AfD and a consensus forms around what to do with that page, you generally shouldn't immediately reverse that consensus decision just because you personally disagree with it (especially when you're the only person who disagrees with it). There are thousands of editors editing Wikipedia at any given time; there is no way that all of us are going to agree on how to deal with every issue. That is why we have consensus processes, and that is why those processes should be respected. If you think my close of the AfD was "ridiculous", then there is a process for appealing it. It's called WP:DRV. I invite you to start a discussion there and see if anyone else agrees with you that my close was "ridiculous". Otherwise, it's pretty disrespectful (to the process, not to me personally) to simply ignore the consensus of a half-dozen editors and attempt to steamroll over them with your preferred vision.

Honestly, if you had done this on a page that gets more than 3 pageviews per year, I would have continued to revert you and escalated the situation. On this page, I don't think it's worth it, and I don't have the time or energy for it. So, have fun, I guess. If anyone objects to what Uanfala is doing on this page, please feel free to revert back to a redirect per the AfD consensus, and let me (or any other admin) know if there is any edit warring or anything else like that going on. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry if I initially pushed IAR a bit too far. Now, the reason I was so annoyed at your close and at the ensuing situation is precisely because it goes against the way I believe AfDs, and discussions more broadly, are supposed to happen. The outcome of a discussion is based on the evidence presented there and how that relates to our policies and guidelines. If, on the other hand, the discussion results in what is effectively the arithmetic average of the votes cast (almost all of which, in this particular case, were based on an assumption later shown to be incorrect) then that is disrespectful to the community. Imagine what would happen if all discussion get closed like that. It will make sense for participants to dig up sources and look for evidence only if they happen to be among the first commenting. For those participating afterwards there would be a significant disincentive for doing so as their comments will not have much weight.

Anyway, maybe I should have been more patient and actually started a DRV. That way we would have found out whether your vision for AfD closures or mine better matches the community expectations. That would have provided an edifying experience for at least one of us. But that will have no practical consequences for this page as the matter has effectively been settled. Given what has been unearthered on this page today, I can't imagine that any sensible person would continue to want to uphold the supposed consensus of the AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ideally AfDs should be closed according to the strength of the arguments presented, and the closer should avoid inserting their own personal opinion. In this case, I believe I have done that. But in reality, the number of votes usually counts for something, even if it's a relatively small contribution to the overall decision of how to close an AfD. The way I think of it is that the bigger the vote count disparity, the more "energy" it should take to overturn the majority and close the AfD for the minority, because you basically have to show that everyone else is crazy except you, or that everyone else missed something critical that should change their mind. In this case, it was like 5-6 delete/redirect votes and one keep vote. In that case, it must take a very convincing argument to overturn that majority, and as a closer, I generally want to see that some people express agreement with you, or even better, some previous delete voters decide to change their vote based on your rationale. In this case, none of those things happened. Only one other editor decided to respond to you, and they didn't particularly agree with your reasoning.

I'm over it, but I think you should be a bit more careful with your application of IAR in the future. IAR isn't a license to do whatever you want, despite what others want. I don't really care what you do with this insignificant dab page. But again, if anyone objects they should feel free to revert to a redirect, and that shouldn't be undone without a discussion showing consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many people had already commented, if it turns out that they were wrong, then you have to discount that, not matter if there was just one of them, or five, or a hundred. Nobody countered my observation, and nobody could have: the matter was plain and obvious. I wouldn't expect people to go back and revise what they've written: most people don't try to keep up with AfD's they've participated in. If what I brought to the table had been present from the start, then no-one would have supported redirection or deletion. And the suggestion that I should have expended colossal amounts of "energy" to point out a simple fact just because I was the last to take part is totally wrong-headed. – Uanfala (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your views on the AfD are misguided. If you took it to DRV, I can virtually guarantee that my close would not be overturned. You've already expended colossal amounts of energy on this insignificant dab page, enough that you've exhausted everyone else around you into letting you do whatever you want, because the stakes are so low. So, congratulations. But, if you'd like to continue arguing about the validity of the AfD closure, then I'd be happy to take it DRV and abide by whatever the community decides there (meaning this page goes back to being a redirect if the AfD isn't overturned at DRV). Or, you can realize that you've already gotten your way, and maybe just be quiet and continue what you're doing. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the immediate issues at hand here have been solved and we've all moved on. But if you would like to challenge the new status quo by taking your own close to DRV, I'll have no objections :-) – Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghadiya

I've moved this entry to the "see also" section as I don't believe the person can be known mononymously as "Ghadiya". Abu Ghadiya is not a sequence of given name + surname, it's a single name (see Kunya (Arabic)). – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are just plain incorrect. People are often referred to by a partial name. See all the partial name references to Ghadiya here and elsewhere. They give the full name once, and then refer to him as "Ghadiya". --Bejnar (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That use appears to be incorrect. But correct or not, it's an attested use, so yeah, it's probably better to move that entry back into the body of the dab. – Uanfala (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had second thoughts. This doesn't appear to be used like that in those sources that have better editorial oversight, does it? I've checked at random an article each in the New York Times, BBC], and the Guardian and they all seem to consistently refer to the person as "Abu Ghadiay", even in subsequent mentions. I'm inclined to see this as an incorrect use, but even if it were correct, we'd still list the person in the "see also" (MOS:DABSUR). So I'm going to revert my previous edit and move the entry back. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]