Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rajeev Jain

 __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. The majority of voices were for delete on the grounds of WP:BIODEL, as an account claiming to be the subject had requested deletion. It seems that this request has been withdrawn, so what we have is a draft biographical article with no strong reason for deletion. Note that closing this discussion as keep does not necessarily mean that the article is ready for mainspace: when completed it should be submitted for review in the ordinary way. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rajeev Jain


Someone claiming to be Rajeev Jain has requested that this draft be deleted. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note the request was made on my talk page among other places. My talk page is currently awaiting admin assistance because of the request I left about it. I suspect this is a matter of pol;icy rather than whether the page is a good or a bad page, the more so since it is a draft. From the comments left on my talk page, parts of which I have blanked as a courtesy, the requestor appears to be genuine. I emphasise the word 'appears', since I am not about to email the address I blanked, nor call the numbers. Fiddle   Faddle  19:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note The policy I had in the back of my mind is WP:BIODEL. The eventual closer of this discussion will wish to refer to it. Fiddle   Faddle  17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:CENSORED??? WEAK DELETE The page I think is created by an author who may be related with the subject, and the subject doesn't want the article to be retained maybe for some personal reasons between them ('cause as far as I can see, I don't find any hate speeches or anything against him)... I personally think as the subject itself doesn't wants an article in his name (he's also barely notable), as an etiquette, we should delete the draft and ask the author not to recreate it (but someone else can create when the subject becomes notable enough)... But what about the guidelines that come under 'Wikipedia is not censored'? If anyone gives a good explanation of the guidelines of why not to delete the article, I reserve the right to change my mind. Regards -- JAaron95 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   07:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NEUTRAL. The subject is notable and I'm confused... -- JAaron95 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   14:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the draft has just been WP:BOMBARDed with references of some sort. There is an off Wikipedia agenda being pursued by someone. The thing is, we cannot tell by whom. Fiddle   Faddle  13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, take a look here (the last topic by Bhartendunatyaakademi). The references are added by the author and on a rough look, seems to be genuine... -- JAaron95 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Both parties to this appear to be genuine. That is part of the issue. Which is why we need to know what needs to happen. I recall that we tend to accede to reasonable requests form the subjects of articles, but I do not know where I saw this. The great swathe of new references, though, are WP:BOMBARD/WP:CITEKILL and have no relationship to the actual discussion Fiddle   Faddle  13:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is because the author is new to Wiki. On seeing the word deletion on his article, he might have thought the article is going to be deleted for the previous reason why the draft was rejected. So, he did whatever he can, to save the article (Note:This does not apply if the author and the subject are related!). To be on the safer side, I've told the author what is currently going on... Hope he reads it! Regards-- JAaron95 &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs   13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently the main contributor to this draft has registered his user name only very recently and this is his/her almost singular contribution. He/she apparently has vested interest in this, and has edited almost nothing else. Yes there are some token contributions on other pages, but this seems to be his/her main contribution. Had he been a more experienced editor editing for some weeks or months in a variety of subjects even if concentrated on Indian cinema, we could trace him/her to a certain acceptable track record on Wikipedia articles. See: edits. I understand he/she has been informed of this discussion about his/her edits on this subject matter. If he/she does not articulate a good enough reason of why this article deserves to stay, like a convincing argument that the subject is very notable, I suggest the page is deleted. Having said that, I personally find the IMDb page of this artist quite impressive. I know on its own, IMDb doesn't mean much, but with all other references added, my impression is there is certainly some plausible ground for this artist's notability. A curious question also about the photograph. Is it legitimate use or copyright infringement. I see it has been taken from a Flickr and Facebook page of Mr. Jain. But is there a release for public use? werldwayd (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This seems to be a notable filmmaker. I'm guessing that the subject doesn't want a Wikipedia article not because of its current condition (which isn't too bad) but because once it exists, it's outside his control (notice that he refers editors to his own website for details about himself). He could be anticipating vandalism. As far as abiding by the subject's wishes, that is most often done when there is personal information involved, like birth dates or relationship information (such as children's names). If there are no BLP violations, I don't see the basis for complete deletion. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BIODEL allows us to delete BLPs at the request of the subject, and I think this is a suitable application. For a start it's a draft rather than an article and so we can afford to be more generous to the subject. Although the reference list looks superficially impressive most of the links turn out to be to blogs, forum posts, IMDB equivalents and other obviously unreliable sources, which absolutely should not be cited in a BLP anyway. I'm not convinced that the subject is actually notable from that reference list, let alone that they qualify as a public figure.  Hut 8.5  18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree WP:BIODEL applies here, since this is a draft. The (assumed) request by the subject, general state of the article and very poor sourcing (IMDb lists, unreliable websites in Kenya and blogs) make me think we're better served by a WP:TNT action here. Some of the edits by the creator also make me think they're not the best person to be creating this biography. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Since it is a Draft: article I am inclined to accede to the presumed request form the subject. WP:BIODEL is appropriate, and to my way of thinking, more so in this namespace than in the main namespace. It is the namespace that tips the balance for me. I would reach the opposite view were this not in the Draft: namespace. Deletion does not prevent re-creation at some future point, perhaps even at once. Were I to close this having reached a conclusion to delete I would think very carefully about the advice I would give to the creator with regard to standing away from the topic. I would also be aware of the presumed subject's request to delete the draft whichever outcome I assessed to be consensus when I closed the discussion, and would feel the need to handle that with sensitivity. Fiddle   Faddle  18:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a slam-dunk for inclusion, so we should err on the side of respecting the subject's clearly expressed wish not to have ana rticle. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please dont delete : : : : : : : : :


 * REFERENCE:  Rajeev Jain Draft Page


 * Hello Sir / Madam


 * As has been rightly pointed out by you, this is the first time I am attempting to put a page up for someone and am therefore not skilled appropriately.


 * While I have attempted to provide a brief about Mr. Rajeev Jain and added references and links as I thought appropriate, I appreciate that it may not be of the quality that you desire. I had wrongly assumed that as this was a draft, the editor would help me with the content. I stand corrected and would like to confirm that I am currently reading through various other articles to learn from them and will edit the document appropriately.


 * As a further point on Mr. Jain’s notability, I would like to share that the ’Times of India’ (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/After-15-yrs-BNA-convocation-in-Sep/articleshow/46913172.cms) dated 14 April 2015 also cites Mr. Rajeev Jain as a cinematographer worthy of recognition along with Rajpal Yadav, Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Muneesh Sappel,  who are noteworthy actors / artists in Bollywood and Wikipedia citizens.


 * I spoke to Mr. Rajeev Jain earlier today and explained to him regarding my attempts. He shared his concern over some negative feedback that he received from some of his critics and was therefore not in favour of having a page on Wikipedia. He now understands my interest and supports me in my attempts. He has also assured me that he would write to you in a day or two to share a status update on his earlier communication to you to delete the article.


 * Looking forward to your support in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhartendunatyaakademi (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 April 2015‎


 * Notability usually requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. This isn't significant coverage, it only says that this person is a cinematographer and that he attended a certain institution.  Hut 8.5  22:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I give up. I have had an email I cannot quote here, via Wikipedia email. What I know and can state is that it comes from the user id, and that it says how this editor, who may or may not be the real person, now wants an article on Wikipedia. I confess to no longer caring about this draft. I am not about to email the gentleman, who may come here if he so wishes and make whatever case he chooses. I am not about to flip-flop on my opinion because the wind has changed, and, to be fair, have no idea whether the wind has changed or not.
 * The email also discusses the picture in the draft, a picture whose licencing I doubt and have thus offered for deletion as a purely technical matter without considering the outcome of this discussion here. Fiddle   Faddle  18:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as a timesink which meets WP:BIODEL; the situation is bizarre and the subject doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE anyway.  Mini  apolis  22:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note There is a pretty much duplicate draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rajeev Jain. It is now, probably, too late to add that to this discussion, so I have no idea what to do about it. Fiddle   Faddle  09:49, 29 April 2015 (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.