Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ajay Nagpure

 __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: delete. Given the recent RfC that confirmed that continuous resubmission without significant improvement is a valid delete reason. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ajay Nagpure


Declined 6 times with clear notes saying he fails WP:PROF etc. Time to remove this draft from the system by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At AfD I would say delete, fails WP:PROF, a mere postdoc not a real academic, hindex 14 ok but not nearly WP:PROF#1 indicating (I think hindex more like 40 is the threshold). At MfD it fails WP:NMFD, the author keeps working on it, and resubmissions are but following the template instructions.  It needs a reject template, try NSFW for now, post on the talk page “not acceptable due to failing WP:N; PROF; and ANYBIO, as already noted with insufficient clarity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the declines we have " Comment: I don't see general notability in a few mere mentions. Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:ANYBIO. User:Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)" and other clear comments Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Question - Has the submitter been asked whether they have an affiliation with the subject? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is autobiographical. Autobiographical non-notable promotion. A CV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Are you saying that the submitter and the subject are the same person? Okay.  If so, so.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the above suggests a reason for deletion in draft space. I haven't reviewed the curently cited sources, but accept the statements of the reviewers and of that they don't suffice to establish notability at this time. That doesn't prove that notability cannot be established with further work, although it may be impossible per WP:OVERCOME. The creator,, seems to be attempting to follow the directions provided in good faith. That this is autobiographical is pure supposition, with as far as I can see no supporting evidence, although it is not implausible. The picture of the subject, which does not seem to be a selfie, is listed as "own work" by Rgals.12, although that is hardly conclusive. In any case, although autobiographies are discouraged, begin one is not grounds for deletion of a draft or article. The tone is factual, and I don't see this as promotional, surely not at the speedy deletion level. The only real issue is notability, and as per WP:NMFD that is not on the table here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been submitted 6 times which is too many and User:DESiegel should read the updated WP:NMFD which addresses this exact situation, then review their rational and reconsider if we want to keep this. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just how many submisisons are now allowed, ? And where is this spelled out? In any case the current wording (which I will work to change) of WP:NMFD says only that a draft may be deleted if it has been resubmited with . I would argue that good-faith edits by the creator in an attempt to comply with the feedback given constitute "substantial improvement" Please change my view to Strong keep. I reject the argument above root and branch. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and try to over turn a widely attended solid RFC authored by User:TonyBallioni that lead to that exact wording. If the wording is not strong enough that we can consider notability then we can strengthen it to stop editors who want to keep non-notable topic from advancing arguments like yours at MfD. If you say "strong keep" you are welcome to mainspace the page where it will immediately be sent to AfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that the current WP:NMFD srill says IN any case there is no possible way to keep anyone from advancing any argument at an MfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the community has rejected the extremist view that every draft is sacred and the consensus was very strong for the new wording. Anyway, in my view “repeated” means more than once, i.e. resubmitted twice/three declines. That’s only my personal view. MfD participants determine what “substantial improvements” means as well, but I assume any closer will ignore views that are outside of the clear community consensus. No views on this particular draft, just general thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Earlier proposals that got some traction included a 3 strikes or 4th submission triggers MFD. I requested this report User:JJMC89 bot/report/AfC decline counts have 4 declines as the cut off. Not all pages with 4 declines need a discussion or should have NMFD applied but he RFC result could be applied to 4 declines especially where little progress is being made. It can also be applied to 3 declines where the user submits unsourced junk 3 times in succession. Some judgement is allowed for in the wording, but 6 is definitely "repeated" Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Than you really should have codified that, and changed the AfC templates, so editors can have a fair idea what the consequences of clicking the Submit button are. But if this is deleted, I will start advising new editors not to use AfC at all, but instead to ask for informal reviews by experienced editors. I will also boldly change the AFC templates to provide a clear warning to new editors of what they face. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant to MfD. If you want to reform AFC, I’m pretty sure would appreciate if you left the message at WT:AFC TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A clear threat to bypass the consensus process underway to change the templates. You might be an Admin but policies around disruption can be applied to you too. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've gone through the sources and there isn't anything that discusses the subject in depth. Some of them mention the subject in passing, some are self-published or otherwise unreliable, but most don't mention the subject at all. This article is unlikely to ever make it to mainspace in any form, and if it does it will promptly get deleted as failing WP:NBIO. Brad  v  21:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to my !vote that there was no reason to bring this to MfD. It hasn't been edited in a month, so it wasn't causing any disruption nor was it taking any of the community's time. G13 was designed to handle precisely this scenario. Brad  v  00:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The draft was first declined November 2016 and last declined 12 days before I started an MFD. 12 days unedited against 20 months of regular submissions gives me no confidence the page is abandoned and would ever reach G13. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is so frustrating that Legacypac can’t make simple sufficient deletion nominations. Eg “promotion of a clearly non-notable person, and an obvious WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY”. Tha would evoke immediate “Delete”s. The case does not meet the unimproved resubmissions clause from the recent RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Having been submitted 6 times to AFC is not a valid reason for deletion of a draft. Writer is making improvements.Egaoblai (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a good reason per the RFC. Do you say he is notable and would you defend the page at AfD? If not, your vote is incorrect. ≤ Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He may or may not be notable. If the page writer can improve the page, as they appear to be doing, then he could be notable. Has anyone told the page drafter that they are only allowed to submit a draft 6 times before taken from them and deleted? Egaoblai (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Article content does not determine notability. No amount of improvement to this draft is going to make it acceptable. Brad  v  00:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just two weeks ago the writer was adding sources.Egaoblai (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just not true, is it? The last source was added on May 17. But you seem to miss the point of what I'm saying – check WP:ARTN. Brad  v  13:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as a tendentious resubmission. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:00, 19 June 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.