Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pankaj Kumar

 __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: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Pankaj Kumar


Deleted from mainspace as follows:


 * 2 months ago:WP:CSD G5: Created by blocked user (deleted by Swarm)
 * 6 months ago:	Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11 (deleted by SlimVirgin)
 * 11 months ago:	G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (deleted by Ultraexactzz)
 * 7 years ago:	A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion (CSDH) (deleted by SpacemanSpiff)
 * 7 years ago:	A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject (deleted by NawlinWiki)

I've just declined this draft for the second time. Time to remove this title from draft space too. Creator name matches the subject name so its likely an autobiography and the creator has left the site it seems. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably meets G11 due to the three sources utterly fail to support most of the content, but a bit of a stretch for me. It is not simp,e promotion, it is a serious draft attempt. It has “no hope” of being accepted.  Clearly you want to “Reject” the draft, but lack a suitable template and aren’t comfortable writing “Reject” freehand.  Unfortuantely, these are not deletion reasons for draftspace. Many hold that draftspace is ok for topics that may become notable, as may this actor when his films are released.  I think you are better off requesting a block of the author, but really, you and AfC need to remove the saccharine encouragements to keep keep keep trying trying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - In this case, it does appear appropriate to file a sockpuppet investigation. I agree that we need to remove the encouragements to keep keep trying, but we also need to do something when originators keep keep trying, and sometimes deletion is more appropriate than block.  In this case, like the two others on 5 April, the person might or might not be notable, but do we need to keep the draft around while waiting for someone to make it neutral, or is there a time when enough is enough?  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion has been stated. As says above, this is a serious attempt at a draft. Alleged lack of current notability is not a reason for deletion in draft space, as per WP:NMFD. Harmless in draft space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete if it keeps getting sent to AfC over and over again, wasting reviewers time that could be better spent elsewhere, then it isn't 'harmless'. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:46, 5 April 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.