Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Akhilendra Sahu

 __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: no consensus. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Akhilendra Sahu


Nothing notable about the person as of now. Probably, nothing notable about the person would occur in near future as well. Dial911 (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably, but unless you can make a G11 case, this stuff should be rejected and left for G13. Probably not notable, but possibly notable.  The submissions violates WP:NMFD, the nominator has made no valid rationale for deletion, Speedy keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If WP:NMFD prevents us from deletign junk that can't be speedied we need to overturn NMFD. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Instead, AfC and its reviewers need to learn how to REJECT in plain English. Have you read the message templated on the draft.  This is not mixed messages, this is totally stuffed up communication.  MfDing of the consequences does nothing to address the root of the problem.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I rejected the draft first. Then I thought this draft is almost G11 and never gonna get to pass through AfC. Also, I was not sure if concerning administrator would be convinced for G11 or not. Thus, I proposed it for MfD so that editors can decide. Dial911 (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Dial911, you thought this was almost G11, so brought it to MfD. That’s ok, even great, except your nomination included no G11 language, but instead went straight to the forbidden WP:NMFD. Notability concerns alone, like your rationale, and not for bringing to MfD.  Promotion is.  Yes, it looks G11 eligible to me.  YouTube is promotion, and there are zero suitable sources.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe we agree the templates need changing. Most of us don't have the right tools to change them. That is not the AfC reviewer's fault. Dumping on the AfC volunteers will not force an Admin to edot the templates. Oh and Delete cause Dial911 is perfectly correct to seek deletion - taht is a strong message to the submitter to get with the program and not submit unacceptable content. They went through the Article Wizard which contains all kinds of cautions not to submit non-notable content. Not our fault they ignored all the instructions. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * AfC reviewers are capable of stripping the stupid saccharine worded encouragement to edit and resubmit, and replace them with Template:NSFW, for example. Better to do that than to bring them to MfD where the nominations are not welcome. WP:DENY. All the many reasons mentioned in support of the NMFD RfC (I know you don’t care for the opposing rationales to yours, but you should stop denying their existence).  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This would be a clear A7 at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, so you Support “would be a clear A7” as a deletion rationale for a submitted draft? I wish the community would agree to this.  Have you contributed to the discussion at WT:AfC?  SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - It would be good if we could apply the A criteria to Submitted drafts. It doesn't say that we can.  Is there consensus that we should apply them as MFD criteria?
 * 'Comment - Has anyone asked whether there is a conflict of interest? I, personally, am willing to delete COI drafts because I think COI drafts are bad for Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - Some of the AFC reviewers are getting tired of being dumped on for what we can't do, Reject the drafts dirtily. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t respect the supporting of obviously broken processes. Reviewers could remove the stupid templates.  Editors nominating something that reviewers tag with encouragement to improve and resubmit is a contradiction.  Dial911 Should read WP:NMFD and ensure a minimum standard for his nomination rationales.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC))
 * , I have read WP:NMFD in the past. What I did was the best of my judgement at that point of time as per WP:COMMONSENSE and/or WP:IAR. My emphasis on this draft being utterly crap and non-notable is what creating a fuss here. I should have played with my words while nominating this for deletion. Dial911 (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is surely not demonstrated by this draft as it stands. It may never be, but then again it may be in time -- particularly for Indian sources there may be quite a lot out there which does not show up in a superficial search. In any case, lack of notability is not currently a valid reason to delete a draft, as per WP:NMFD. Nor should it be, as deleting such drafts would prevent the eventual discovery of sources in those cases where the subject is in fact notable. I am amazed by the crystal balls some editors must posses, to be so sure that no source could possibly exist. I can't be sure, so I say such drafts should be kept. They do no harm, and we need a better way to educate those who submit such drafts. Deleting will not teach them, it will simply frustrate and/or enrage them -- I have seen it too many times. There are better ways. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:55, 14 April 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.