Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Madhu Guruswamy

 __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:  keep. It seems like people have already taken care of warning the editor in question. signed,Rosguill talk 03:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Madhu Guruswamy

 * – (View MfD)

Multiple resubs without improvement and multiple removals of previous AFC comments. Has not shown any significant roles in major productions. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Plausibly notable. Many ghits. Many film credits. First decline was about removing self-published sources, which I am not sure is a reason to not accept and otherwise ok stub.
 * User:AngusWOOF, when alleging “multiple resubs without improvement”, please give some diffs. Unfortunately, submissions do not register a useful edit summary.  I want to know who did the repeated resubmissions.  In this case it looks like a 14 month editor with a good number of mainspace edits.  I would prefer to see regular editors warned with blocking for disruptive resubmissions than to see deletion of plausibly notable drafts, especially where the early declines were exacting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go: AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 29 September 2019 last rejection with AFC comment
 * 25 January 2020 2 edits, removing comment and resubmitting
 * 25 January 2020, AFC reviewer restore comment
 * 10 February 2020, decline by
 * 10 February 2020, resub by, resubmitting without any updates
 * 10 February 2020, decline by myself, no improvement
 * 10 February 2020, deletion of AFC comments
 * 10 March 2020, deletion of comments
 * 10 March 2020, resubmit
 * That's three strikes. That's why I sent it to MFD. If you want to keep and then create-protect so that serious editors can clean it up, I'm amenable to that. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that there is a Need to do Something.  "Delete the draft" is a common outcome where there are IP and SPA editors doing it.  In this case, I recommend:  Warn then Block .  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as he has a prominent role in Bhajarangi and the main villian in another film, Vajrakaya, he also has an upcoming film that could make him more notable. I don't see the problem with keeping this in draftspace but I advise the creator not to resubmit until the actors next film has been released so that extra references are added, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would have to watch out for star billing on the later films since some of these were stuffed into the infobox so those films need to be scrubbed to see if he indeed has poster billing. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and Warn Looks as if the subject may be notable so it wouldn't be eligible for deletion. I've sent a 4im warning to the user to not remove rejection or decline messages. If he does it again then it should be reported to an admin who can handle it. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This is really a conduct issue, and this is a content forum. ECP will not be useful, because the draft should be available for a neutral editor to work on if the subject becomes more notable, and the editor in question already is extended-confirmed.  As the previous editors have noted, a warning is in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2020 (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.