Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jugnoo Rahi

 __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. No consensus to delete. Anybody who wants to mainspace this can go ahead at their pleasure. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jugnoo Rahi


This page has be declined 5 times now with clear source analysis and pointing to how the subject fails WP:PROF. Time to end the resubmissions Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not clear. If the resubmissions are a problem, remove the saccharine encouragement to improve and resubmit. The resubmit button and lack of clear communication invalidates complaints about resubmissions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thie whining is getting ridiculous. We told the user what was wrong. They can't fix it or don't choose to read the guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe isn't whining. He is having a tantrum about the wording of the decline template, and is holding his breath and cursing in sign language.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps he should propose some changes to the decline template instead of fussing about every spam draft we nominate here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You told the user? Diffs please. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How about the four messages at the top of the page saying the draft fails the general notability guideline, along with this detailed explanation of why? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is nullified by the saccharine encouragement to edit improve and resubmit using the big blue button. Do you know that "notability" is a Wikipedian term of art that confuses newcomers.  So much bloat and boxing and icons and formatting, and terms not in standard English, it is no surprise they grab the first actionable simple message to be found, which is "edit improve resubmit".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, except in this particular instance, there is a conspicuous lack of "edit" and "improve". For example, after the last declination, in which he was told that The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source, he simply removed the Daily Mail, while completely failing to address that thing he has been clearly told has been the problem the entire time, which is that there isn't enough sourcing. Perhaps modifying the template to wikilink to notability and noting in the message that notability is a distinct concept here would help, except is isn't really necessary, because the message then immediately summarizes below what notability is. If he had been reading the messages at all, regardless of his understanding of the jargon, he would have caught that he needs "significant coverage (not just mere mentions) … in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as tendentious re-submissions. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Has anyone asked the author about conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The author either has a single-minded (but plausible) interest in eye doctors and vision scientists, or is being paid to write up eye doctors and vision scientists. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainspace. Google scholar says hindex 42, 6056 citations. Likely meets Prof#1.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and mainspace Agree with SmokeyJoe here, plenty of sources. Another submission to MFD where the AFC reviewer advice is vague and does not offer anything constructive. Resbmitting is a not a crime nor a valid reason to delete a draft. Egaoblai (talk) 03:24, 16 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.