Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdul Quadir Amin

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. There is no consensus to delete the draft at this time. Consensus is that it's doing what drafts are supposed to do. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Abdul Quadir Amin


Page was A7 out of mainspace a month ago with the comment "2 uncredited roles". Evidently the creator did not get the message Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't delete drafts for notability issues. The author may find evidence of notability that the CSD process did not previously allow for. If not, the draft will likely die on the vine. If the author looks like they're trying to use the draft as an alternative web presence, it can be deleted on WP:NOTWEBHOST grounds, but the present argument is insufficient to delete this draft. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep — seconding; while it looks like this actor fails to meet notability standards, that is not a reason for deleting a draft.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you don't understand the purpose of draft space. It is for developing potential articles not hosting bios of random people. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly fond of this policy, but it does seem to be the governing policy:WP:Drafts. Whether that's contrary to the purpose of draft space would be a subject for a different debate. You could change your rationale for deletion here to something that is not primarily about lack of notability and then I'd re-evaluate my stance. My sense is that the community expects drafts like this to be deleted when finally judged abandoned rather than to be deleted for lack of notability. In practice, I've seen where admins have deleted a draft on the basis of notability and had the deletion upheld in deletion review where this footnote has been cited — so it can go either way.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The linked RfC is being overturned in part and the wording is widely rejected in practice. Essentially a page about a non-notable person is just a webhost or promotion problem. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Overturned in a place you can point to? I haven't seen it, but that's not contrary evidence; I only manage to read a tiny fraction of what gets discussed. As I see it, there's a tension between the desire to somehow discourage the contributor of an unsatisfactory draft by deleting the draft and the desire to avoid having the editing environment seem hostile by biting new editors. I still say editors' behavioral problems need to be addressed directly, not indirectly by deleting their otherwise good faith efforts.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy close per WP:NMFD. Legacypac can’t overturn an RfC in which he was massively and unanimously disagreed with. If the author is not getting the message, look at the pathetically inadequate messaging. The draft still has the saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Would WP:NOTFACEBOOK be a basis to delete? Would WP:AUTOBIO be a basis to delete?  Would WP:NOTWEBHOST be a basis to delete?  User:Legacypac has some genuinely terrible ideas about moving drafts to mainspace, but that shouldn't be held against them just because they used the wrong magic word in making a nomination.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It just needs a proper “reject” response. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep; this is premature. I'd expect an A7'd article to be re-created in Draft space if the user intends to work on it. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 07:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep; i think this draft's user has to give some more time to get the required sources.Ahanamirza (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So a non-notable actor can use draft space to promote themselves? Keep votes mean this page is suitable for Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, keep votes on this page mean that there is a ghost of a chance that this page could become suitable for Wikipedia. The whole point of draft space is that the page is not yet suitable for Wikipedia, but given time, might become suitable. The chances of that with this page are slim, but there is no harm to the project in having the page here. Draft pages are not searchable, so the idea of using a draft page for self-promotion is not terribly valid. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No one but wikipedians look at drafts, and barely any wikipedians even. The advertising concern is minuscule. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's interesting you spend so much time defending pages that can't WP:OVERCOME (provable by simply googling the actor's name) amd wasting the time of editors who are interesting in sorting the useful pages from the useless pages with the goal of developing the encyclopedia. I know why I'm sorting pages - to improve mainspace. Why are you here edefending junk? How will that ever improve mainspace by wasting experienced reviewer time rejecting and rejecting pages that will not mailke it in mainspace - in this case one that was already deleted from mainspace? Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I could ask the same question: why are you so hot to have this completely harmless collection of bytes deleted from the project in contradiction to current policy when you could be spending time on other project-improving activities? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorting quality from junk in WP:AfC. We need to clear the junk to get the good in to maimspace. You did not answer my question - because you have no excuss for spending time defending the hopeless from deletion. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not fighting for this article; I'm fighting for the adherence to existing policies. You are already involved in an RFC regarding the deletion of draft articles, but it appears you wish rush the process by ignoring the policy you're discussing. Wikipedia has a policy against deleting drafts solely on the basis of notability, and that is still the standing policy. Until that policy changes, I oppose the deletion of drafts solely on the basis of notability because that is the standing polciy. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is neither "long standing policy" nor practice. You therefore see Draft space as a place to indefinitely host content that has no purpose in the encyclopedia and are willing to come to MfD to vote to preserve it. That is pretty much WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the policy is longstanding or not, it is current policy. The fact that it is not practice is kinda the problem. If you'd like to take me to WP:ANI over NOTHERE violations, feel free. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per jmcgnh. If we have good reason to believe the subject not notable, we have good reason to delete.  Nyttend (talk): 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * jmcgnh is arguing for keeping the draft. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 23:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He says "it looks like this actor fails to meet notability standards". The closing admin needs to disregard the non-sequitur conclusion.  Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely find the Legacypac nominations frustrating, and increasingly so. Something was A7-ed from mainspace?  Was it the same thing as the current state of the draft?  Note that Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion is still in the air, and if there is not consensus that A7 is a submitted draftspace reason, I will not accept A7 as a sufficient reason for deletion of a draft.
 * "Evidently the creator did not get the message"?! This is where the frustration is building considerably. What is the message?  Have a look.  "Submission declined on 14 May 2018 by Legacypac"  OK.  Declined is a pretty soft word.
 * "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". "Adequately".  "not adequately".  This means you need to do more.  It does not mean rejected.  the rest of htat box, blah blah blah.  How many experienced Wikipedians are not on the page with that anyway?  It is clearly not written custom for the author, it is clearly templated, I reckon less than 1% are reading this, a behaviour we all have.  See WP:TL;DR.
 * Next paragraph: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab ..."  Big bold "Edit".  It's repeated on the next line.  Blah blah blah about "may request deletion", what irrelence is that about?  If you require extra help ...?  Yeah right, have you seen what happens when reviewers ask questions at User_talk:Legacypac?  The *only* meaningful message is "Edit"', "make improvements", and then there is a big blue "Resubmit" button, which logically should be pressed after the edit and improve is done.
 * This is madness.
 * Delete this page, and then there will be the next. The same mistakes over and over again.  Every time, burning an enthusiastic newcomer.  It that ok, just because mostly they are making junk contributions?
 * "2 uncredited roles" As a assistant director, he is best known for his work of a "Talaash".  That article doesn't even name the assistance director.  Obviously not notable.  https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9709863/?ref_=nm_wrk is pretty scant, and they let anyone add anything.  Obviously this draft should be rejected, but there is no easy check button template.  There is Legacypacs NSFW (cute name), but whatever, the templates currently on the draft have to be removed before there is any validity to complaining that the creator did not get the message.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tried to change the templates, but can't. You've made the point enough times within MfD it is bordering on disruption. AfC and MfD need to continue to function regardless of what that templates say. Please stop the disruption of the normal process Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The function of MfD is to reject deletion nominations where there is no valid reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, subset the templates, and then modify? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.