Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Palak Sindhwani

 __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. RL0919 (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Palak Sindhwani

 * – (View MfD)

entirely non notable, and, judging from a look at the refs, entirely promotional. This is perhaps a new low for The Times of India  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if this was mainspaced, I would redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah the only notable role which she took over from the previous actress as of 2019. Does she have any coverage besides Times of India?  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This is just a draft, and MFD is not the place to argue notability. In addition, The Times of India is a mostly independent source, so I don't see how the draft is entirely promotional. Geolodus (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the presence of the reference this relies on in the Times of India is proof that newspaper  can not be necessarily be considered a reliable independent source for all purposes., since it is willing to publish absurdly trivial press releases. The paper is not unique iamong otherwise reliable papers in that regard, nor is India the only country where this happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a mediocre draft. It would need to be declined if it were submitted.  It hasn't even been submitted.  Is User:DGG submitting cruddy drafts to MFD in order to distract the MFD regulars from arguing about portals, or out of an honest desire to keep draft space free of pages that look like mediocre drafts?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a very great interest in cleaning up Draft space, and in the absence of sufficiently flexible speedy criteria, this is the only way. Keaving them in till they get repeatedly submitted and touched up, requires repeated efforts that make it harder  to deal with truly uncertain cases and fix up potentially acceptable articles. I have an even greater interest in the more general problem of calling qattention to the problems of blindly accepting any newspaper as necessarily reliable without looking at what it actually published in the specific case.   DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On the general problem, DGG, is Reliable sources/Perennial sources the proper venue, or some other RS essay or Guideline?  I’m sure you must be aware of the general revenue crisis for all newspapers, they lost their advertising revenue, and are perpetually in decline. All newspapers, including the New York Times, have included undeclared nonindependent stories, subtle advertising, even native advertising. Newspaper feature stories are a terrible source for evidence of notability of any commercial topic including TV.  My reading of WP:N is that the problem is already covered by the requirement for “independent” sources, noting that interviews make the source non-independent. Also, supply of new images is a sure giveaway of a non-independent newspaper article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, leave for CSD#G13. Yes, promotional, but not enough for G11, but is a sourced proper draft and so there is no MfD-worthy reason for deletion. If submitted it should be DECLINEd. AfC processes suffice. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a little more skeptical about the sufficiency of G13: it produces errors in both directions--hopeless drafts staying indefinitely because wikignomes make trivial changes, and promising ones get deleted because the original contributor goes away, and nobody else notices. (I try to catch at least the ones in my field, and I think a few others do similarly, and I do fix & accept a few, but I cannot come anwhere near keeping up with them).  the way to eal with the worst drafts is to remove them immediately.  DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * keep notability should not be in issue with an unsubmitted draft. Not blatantly promotional enough go G11, not unsourced. Could be improved to validity if the sources are out there, and will wither if they aren't, and does no harm meanwhile. No reason to delete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and leave for AfC processes. Not crappy enough of a draft to bother with here. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep you don't nominate a draft for deletion one day after it was created, give it a chance.Catfurball (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2019 (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.