Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan

 __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  Speedy Keep as per nominator's further comments, below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan


First, the author of this draft is making no effort to improve the draft because they are ignoring the comments of the reviewers. Second, the author of the draft is engaging in personal attacks on the reviewers, so that this draft is becoming a vehicle for disruption. Third, the author of this draft has (in the past) removed the record of declines. Enough is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently neutral, though I may reconsider based upon the referencing. The challenge is whether the draft is redeemable, ignoring completely the behaviour of the aggressive editor. However, I will not be analysing references or reviewing this material myself. Perhaps the nominator or another editor might give us a full reference analysis so we may make a technical decision totally divorced from the unpleasant and disruptive behaviour exhibited in the comments. Fiddle   Faddle  16:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. See nom's comments lower down. Contributing editor is seeking assistance and should be allowed to continue unhindered. The eventual fate of this draft will be in their success or failure not this discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  21:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * what deletion criteria / reason outlined in the policy is this pursued under? WP:DEL-REASON Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will note that WP:DEL-REASON says very little about drafts. My guess is that the draft would be redeemable with a collaborative proponent.  My attitude toward drafts that are making no progress differs from that of some other editors.  My attitude is that improvement of a draft is primarily the responsibility of the proponent, and that the proponent may ask for assistance from the community, and I am willing to MFD a draft when the proponent is making no effort to improve the draft.  Some editors take the idea that the improvement of the draft is the responsibility of the community, regardless of whether the proponent is willing to engage the community.  In this case, it is clear that the proponent is not willing to engage the community.  If another editor is willing to become a proponent of the draft, I will agree that it is redeemable.  I don't plan to do a full reference analysis.  If other editors think that means that I shouldn't have nominated the draft, they are welcome to !vote Keep.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I concur with the rationale for nomination when a draft makes no progress, As a by-product the contributing editor's attention is concentrated. I make the same nominations myself when I view there to be no hope of making progress. To me that is the rationale on which we should judge the nomination. I am ignoring (in this discussion) the attitude of the contributing editor, whom I have left a stern warning on their talk page. Others may disagree. I an content that the nom is making no analysis of the references. Perhaps someone else would do so. I will change my opinion based own the result of that analysis. Fiddle   Faddle  18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the deadline for drafts is no edits for 6 months (WP:G13). It's not an attack page or spam either. Issues with editor conduct should be dealt with elsewhere. (By the way, there are editors who "adopt" abandoned drafts; I've done it sometime too). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cimment The draft have been nominated for deletion saying that I am not showing interest in improving it.I am politely requesting you to please see the revision history I added sources on 2nd december then on 25 november.At this time the draft has 14 verifiable sources.And I am still working on it.I am trying to bring more references.As for my comment on one of editor, I have apologized on the draft comment.I was not meant to insult anyone.I just tried to defend my edits.My draft has reference for every words.And he gave an example for his support which was not true.I replied him with two visible sopport.By the way, I am really sorry for my use of the word"lying" which I am taking back....... Again, apologizing for my comment and hoping for the reconciliationEjaz92 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The author of the draft is now seeking assistance in improving the draft and has apologized for the personal attacks. I am willing to let this MFD run or to have it closed as a Speedy Keep.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Forgiveness is the greatness so apology of Ejaz92 may please be accepted. Further I would request to draft reviewer encourage, believe me I have seen verifiable sources (secondary + tertiary) i.e. Serial No.1, 6, 7, 9 and 12 in references/citation. I think a writer is a mother in relation to his/her writing, so me feeling his pain for (still borne) delivery.  Draft does not contain harmful contents.  Nannadeem (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (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.