Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Namik Paul

 __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 no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Namik Paul

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted several times in the last months to year and there's still not the genuine convincing here. SwisterTwister  talk  23:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does "genuine" convincing require something beyond significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? Because that is absolutely there. I'm confused by your last decline - do you think the multiple Indian newspapers cited are not reliable or independent? Additionally, a simple google search reveals many Times of India articles solely about Namik Paul beyond the one already cited. It has some tone issues, but it's not promotional. I'd say it's ready for mainspace. A2soup (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They can be, but we've also established these publications willingly publish paid press as it is, and we have a history of XfDs establishing it; next, the user also stated he still has not obtained other released works yet, so this is in fact still in line with the last AfD, Articles for deletion/Namik Paul since his career hasn't changed since then, thus still unconvincing; those links above are all still entertainment announcements. We're not IMDb and this here suggests it's one. SwisterTwister   talk  05:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there is a history of XfDs establishing the Times of India as not a reliable source? Because all of the delete !votes at the AfD you cite give a lack of coverage in reliable sources, so if the coverage in the Times of India counts as reliable, your citing of that AfD doesn't count for much.
 * And besides, this is a draft, not an article. We are not using AfD standards, we are using chance vs. no-chance standards. I find it difficult to believe this draft represents a "no-chance" situation. A2soup (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At AfD, I especially emphasize TOI is unacceptable for anything such as business and companies, because those are especially clear paid press; but in this case, they're simply entertainment columns, that alone is not enough to satisfy our policies since they're clear about what they accept. Because it was deleted at AfD, and it's still unacceptable here, deletion is the next step. SwisterTwister   talk  00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All of your arguments refer to policies about what is acceptable as an article. What makes this unacceptable as a draft (which is what I assume you mean by "here")? A2soup (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it violates our policy WP:NOT, accepting paid press or anything similar, in which we've established these publications willingly accept, is not acceptable in our fundamental policies. SwisterTwister   talk  05:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (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.