Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chahat Pandey

 __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 per WP:SKCRIT. No reason to delete has been given, just issues that can be settled either on the draft's talk page or in dispute resolution venues. An AfC reviewer has indicated that he intends to publish the article, and the protecting admin of the redirect appears open to unprotecting, so it seems silly that an MfD with no policy-based rationale should prevent that. Courtesy ping Robertsky for next steps at AfC. (non-admin closure) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chahat Pandey

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

I believe this draft should be deleted because there are a lot of unnecessary edit wars and controversies happening around just this one draft. It's better to have it getting deleted and make an end to all the unnecessary chaos at once! Thank you! Commonedits (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that you withdraw your resubmission of the draft? 331dot (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really I'm tired of "constant & continuous wave of afc comments" in that draft, honestly!Commonedits (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then it makes no sense why you are requesting deletion of something you want accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It does make "sense" as no editor in Wikipedia will want to undergo mental torcher like this in form of incessant afc comments hurled at them for a "draft" which may or may not get accepted! Thank you!Commonedits (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. You cannot have it both ways. You can want it to be accepted or you can want it deleted. Not both. You also have not cited any Wikipedia policy that supports deletion.  331dot (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. You cannot have it both ways. You can want it to be accepted or you can want it deleted. Ok I want it to be accepted without getting mentally torchered by afc comments.
 * You also have not cited any Wikipedia policy that supports deletion. Honestly, I did not know how to do it. I came here only because you suggested me it in Draft:Chahat Pandey talk page.Commonedits (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very curious indeed. If you want the draft accepted, and have no policy which supports deleting the draft, I suggest that you say that you withdraw this nomination. You are going to have to deal with comments on the draft, and politely/civilly address those concerns if you want to see it accepted. No deleting it and coming back later. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very curious indeed. If you want the draft accepted, and have no policy which supports deleting the draft, I suggest that you say that you withdraw this nomination. I am ok with this deal provided with one condition......
 * You are going to have to deal with comments on the draft, and politely/civilly address those concerns if you want to see it accepted. No deleting it and coming back later. I don't think I am the only "uncivil savage" here. There are many whom you also know that I need not name here! Anyhow, the way the I was "reimbursed" with comments yesterday was quite "uncivil". And it is too much if someone behaves "uncivilly" to others and then demand "civility" from the same people. So I too expect the "same" civility from them as they expect from me.
 * One more thing, I would just like to hear a word from before withdrawing my nomination because he really helped a lot. Thank you so much  Sir!Commonedits (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to make deals, just suggesting the best course of action for you. I have never said you are an "uncivil savage". If others are uncivil towards you(which I haven't seen yet) there are proper channels to address that. Only you can control your behavior. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok fine (the suggestion) for me! Commonedits (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , pissing off the regular AFC reviewers such as and  and myself, who have provided detailed feedback on how the article needs to be improved to be ready, calling them COI or non-CIV, or resubmitting tendentiously to ignore the feedback and the create protection, is only serving to anger more AFC reviewers and prompting them to endorse create-protection.  As it stands, the create-protection is there until June 2022, so I suggest you cool down WP:STICK, WP:COOL. Look at other articles biographies such as Divya Agarwal and see if you can craft a similar biography that walks through the person's major roles on shows. Note that she too had been AFD'ed in 2018, but has had significant roles in shows to meet WP:ENT as proven later and that such details were fleshed out in that bio so that it is clear she meets WP:ENT. No tellychakkars or times of india except for a particular popularity poll conducted by the paper.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am sorry for pissing you. It wasn't intentional. I apologize for that! I'm sorry to too. Honestly, both of you have been "really helpful" and I swear I didn't intend to hurt/piss you!
 * No tellychakkars or times of india except for a particular popularity poll conducted by the paper. Yes sir, as you had already removed all tellychakkars and times of india, none of those have been re-added! Commonedits (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * erm. i am in process of getting the draft accepted though? 🤔 – robertsky (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are joking then it is a really bad joke, honestly!Commonedits (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Commonedits am not. April 1 isn't here yet. In fact, I had made a request to JBW, the admin who protected the page in the mainspace, to lower the protection, and was typing in a comment on your talk page about it in response to 331dot's comment when I received a notification that the thread was gone. – robertsky (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robertsky Oh thank god it wasn't a joke! Thank you so much for recognizing my efforts! Commonedits (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Are you asking if we should have a notability discussion whether this person has any chance of having an article, once and for all? If so, then post your three best sources that meets WP:GNG / WP:BASIC, and your evidence that Pandey meets WP:ENT major roles in major shows. That the redirect is create-protected means this needs to be especially convincing to overturn that and have information supporting since the AFD in 2019.  Do NOT cite Times of India (WP:RSP unreliable) or Tellychakkar (not reliable WP:INCINE), remove that stuff right now; shake out the rest. Remove all contentious statements.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:Are you asking if we should have a notability discussion whether this person has any chance of having an article, once and for all? Yes I would prefer that if it is feasible in the current scenario!Commonedits (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If so, then post your three best sources that meets WP:GNG / WP:BASIC, and your evidence that Pandey meets WP:ENT major roles in major shows. Okay I will do them right now!Commonedits (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir, Pandey got first main lead role in 2019, in Hamari Bahu Silk and the source you have asked for is over here:, and then she got her second lead role in 2020 in Durga – Mata Ki Chhaya and the source is: and at present she is again the main lead in Dangal TV show Nath Zewar Ya Zanjer and the sources for it are: and . These sources do prove that Pandey meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and WP:ENT.Commonedits (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hindustan Times - this is about her particular situation about her rent, not significant coverage of her career.
 * The Tribune - Q&A interview, not independent of the subject
 * Mid-Day - briefly talks about her emotions in portraying her character on the show, not significant coverage of her career, but does establish that she plays that character.
 * Free Press Journal - announcing her next role on Nath Zevar Ya Zanjeer, not significant coverage of her career (just summarizes briefly her previous role), but establishes that she plays that character
 * I don't see any of those meeting WP:GNG, but they help towards WP:ENT. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Apart from the main lead roles, she was also the parallel lead (parallel lead is known as second leads in indian television) in 3 shows, which was in Aladdin - Naam Toh Suna Hoga, Pavitra Bandhan and Tenali Rama (TV series).Commonedits (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Free Press Journal - same article as previous announcing her next role on Nath Zevar Ya Zanjeer
 * Bhaskar.com - role in Mishti, talks about her school background and schooling, also mentions mother's name, from 6 years ago.  borderline significant coverage if only on her education background, need another editor to confirm.
 * So all these articles can be used to beef up the biography section. I suggest rewriting her roles chronologically. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So all these articles can be used to beef up the biography section. I suggest rewriting her roles chronologically. Yes Sir I agree with you and I will do the needful as you have asked for!Commonedits (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The create protection was applied on 11 March 2022 for "disruptive re-creation contrary to deletion discussion outcome" AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:: Sir, I believe that was a too hasty decision taken by that admin without thinking of the impending consequences. The last article was deleted in 2019 and this is 2022, the admin who are responsible for taking good and wise decisions with respect to the "rules laid down in Wikipedia" should have thought twice that in the time span of 3 years between 2019 and 2022, the actress could have got enough roles to  satisfy WP:ENT. Instead of that, they were just too haste and impulsive to salt the title!Commonedits (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment:: Sir, I would just like to add, I wanted it to be deleted mainly because I was fed-up with the "overflow of comments" in the draft article yesterday and it was unnecessarily leading to a lot of controversies which I did not want to take part in.Commonedits (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , requesting deletion of the entire article because of the long thread of AFC comments isn't a good reason. Presenting the three best sources / GNG sources and discussing ENT and whether it is ready to submit again can be held on the talk page.   AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * requesting deletion of the entire article because of the long thread of AFC comments isn't a good reason. Sir, I swear it was a"very big mental torcher" and it wasn't worth my time to undergo that!
 * Presenting the three best sources / GNG sources and discussing ENT and whether it is ready to submit again can be held on the talk page. Ok Thank you Sir!Commonedits (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't wish to give any opinion on whether the draft should be deleted, but editors taking part in this discussion may find it helpful to be aware of the following facts.
 * This was originally an article, deleted as a result of Articles for deletion/Chahat Pandey.
 * This MfD discussion is the latest in a series of attempts by Commonedits to have the draft deleted. Previously they have tried to have it speedily deleted as an article with one author who has requested deletion, despite the two facts that, firstly, numerous editors have contributed to the draft, and, secondly, the creator of the page had not made any such request. (And indeed couldn't, as they've been indef-blocked for over two and a half years.) Subsequent comments by Commonedits gave the impression that they had decided to take on ownership of the draft, and regarded themself as the de facto creator of the article, as all previous editing was insignificant in comparison to their own contributions. When they found that other editors didn't accept that ownership, and things weren't going to go their way, they decided to have "their" draft deleted rather than allow other editors to influence its form.
 * All of the "unnecessary edit wars and controversies" that Commonedits refers to above have been caused by Commonedits, including IP block-evading editing during a block imposed to try to stop their disruption. (There's no doubt about that: Commonedits has admitted to being the IP editor.) They could put a stop to those problems in a much easier way than trying persistently trying to get the draft deleted, by just walking away and forgetting about it.
 * Obviously anyone may read the editing history and decide whether they agree with that description or not, but that seems to me to be very much what has happened. Whether editors will think there are any policy-based reasons for deletion is,of course, a completely different question, but I don’t believe that Commonedits has provided one. JBW (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a disruptive nomination. I have been involved with the review of this draft, and I have read the editing history one more time now, and User:JBW has described it well.  I concur that there is no policy-based reason to delete the draft.
 * User:Commonedits has alternately demanded that the draft be accepted, and attempted to have the draft deleted, but contrary to deletion policy. It appears that they are saying that if they can't get credit for its acceptance, no one should get it accepted in the future.  That isn't characteristic of a collaborative project.
 * As stated by JBW, there was an article, and the article was deleted via AFD. The main reason for deletion was too soon.  Draft space has various uses, but one of its best uses is as a holding area for draft BLPs of people who are not yet notable because they are too soon.  Deleting a draft because it is not about to be accepted would be destructive.
 * I can't find a good faith explanation for requesting to delete a draft only because it isn't about to be accepted. Maybe someone else can tell me what the good-faith reason is.  It certainly isn't a policy-based reason.
 * This draft contains content that was still being reviewed before this disruptive nomination. It might be accepted next week, or improved in four months and accepted.
 * This is a content forum, so we do not need to consider whether the nominator is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ,well, several days ago I found you disruptively edit in some pages, attacking others and now you are disruptively nominating for MfD again, just because being refused a lot?
 * No, Never. If you really want to delete your draft, you could blank it and submit a CSD instead. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Others have edited it so the author CSD criteria would not apply. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Then just keep this draft and let's quick solution for this nomination. By the way, for his long-term behaviors, an ANI or ARB case might be more suitable. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * His block evasion, attacking others in Draft, assuming bad faith in wp:teahouse and today distruptive nomination all made things more complex. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I said above that I didn't wish to give any opinion on whether the draft should be deleted, but following further thought, I have changed my mind. It is entirely possible that this draft may become a suitable article, and there's no good reason to throw away all the work that a number of editors have put into it just because one editor doesn't want it, which is effectively the only reason for deletion which had been put forward. JBW (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm not seeing a really good reason for deleting the draft. It boils down to WP:TNT, but that's not designed to hide history, but to deal with an article that's in such bad shape with BLP, NPOV and ATTACK issues it's not worth keeping anything.  That's not true here.  This is a draft and the past history is relevant to future reviewers to be aware that there ARE issues around this article and the review needs to be thorough so when it does get to main space, we're not dealing with further drama.    Ravensfire  (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT, and move conversations above to the draft's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2022 (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.