Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H. (2nd nomination)

 __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  moot. Page has been moved to mainspace with MFD removed. I think in the future if you are going to move the page and remove the MFD notice, I think it's prudent to close the discussion as well. Else, I think it's a disservice to anyone if they wanted to actually consider discussing this page for whatever reason. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC), you're probably right--I wasn't sure what sequence of steps to use for this. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rohit Varma, M.D., M.P.H.


The page looks more or less like an advertisement or promotion thing, almost on a similar vein to linkedin. Also not really notable. Winterysteppe (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace. I think the subject looks sufficiently notable, and has a good chance of passing AfD.  I think the AfC decline is overly exacting, that "Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format" is something to be done in mainspace.  The page is at least the product of enough work that it deserves at least a run.  I would like to ask User:DGG's opinion, given our discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I boldly did just that--anyone who wants an AfD can go and do it. Someone who has attained the position of a chair of a Dept. of USC School of Medicine has necessarily had sufficient impact his field for WP:PROF. The article however was so clearly the work of a PR agent at presumably at USC that I could excuse the AfD decline. I would not have accepted it had I not been prepared to rewrite it; There's citation record to be added and a check for the references, but it's good enough for mainspace now. That's the problem with articles of the sort: we are doing the public a benefit by taking press releases and putting them in an encyclopedic format, but it's an absurd use of volunteer time and effort. If he were borderline notable, rather than clearly notable, I wouldn't have bothered. And I probably wouldn't have done it even so if had needed writing new material, instead of just deleting the inappropriate and duplicative.  I will make the time to do this for any clearly notable academic if it's brought to my attention.--I wish I had time to catch them at an earlier stage.  DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 16 March 2016 (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.