Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shreya 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) 11:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shreya Kumar


Same story as below - Sloppy, unsourced writing about a supposedly real person that is not in any way notable. Home Lander (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A7 should apply to draft space Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If I understand the objection at [], A7 or A11 can’t be expanded to cover stuff like this, because taggers can’t be trusted, and deleting admins can’t be trusted, and because it can be deleted per WP:CSD. User:Compassionate727, User:DESiegel, User_talk:SoWhy, do I have your opinions right? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not completely, no. Not mine at least. Partly it is indeed that I do not trust NPPers to refrain from tagging things that should not be tagged, nor do I trust some admins to refrain from rubber-stamping such tags. In both cases this is based on long experiences and the many invalid tags I have declined, and the fair number of invalid speedy deletions I have seen, and sometimes raised at DRV. But it is also that I do not think new editors will understand, particularly on their first submissions, the standards that an article will need to meet. The subject may have a valid claim of significance -- may even be notable -- but the new editor will in some cases not spell it out, nor provide the sources that would establish notability. Until a new editor can be educated (and it takes longer for some than others, long enough to be frustrating to reviewers) we can't legitimately separate the wheat from the chaff. Trying will give too many false positives. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not as concerned about improper deletions as and  are, and I echo DESiegel's concerns about a learning curve. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Could argue G3 applies, as I cannot find anything anywhere to prove this person actually exists (no personal website, not even any social media that I can see; every hit is about a Doctor of Philosophy in engineering). But this should suffice. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I voted twice, apparently. Striking first vote in favor of stronger reasons in the second. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly not ready for main space. may never be ready, but may become so. may mean someone who has only ever had a single trivial modeling job, or not even that, and is very unlikely ever to be notable. Or it may mean a rising pro, on or over the threshold of notability. Without sources we can't tell, Unless soemoen has done a very through WP:BEFORE search, three is nmo way to know. In any case the proposal to extend A7 to draft space has not yet passed, and i hope and trust it won't. This is not deletable under oven the recently modified WP:NMFD. "Unsourced" is not a valid reason to delete a draft. Nor is apparent lack of notability. This is not speedy-deletable as blatant promotion. In short there is no valid reason to delete this, nor does it do any harm. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not ready, probably will never be ready. By a three minute SPA.  Do you give much thought to the fact that the author pressed the “submit” button?  Would you be more impressed if the button said “I think this draft is ready to be a Wikipedia article” ?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No that doesn't seem very relevant to me at all. I don't think, with the current instructions, that it is at all clear to a new editor what clicking submit means, beyond a step toward getting an article into Wikipedia. Nor do i think that we can count on a new editor clearly understanding what it means to say that a draft, whatever the face of the button says. If this is really a three-minute SPA who will not pursue the situation, the draft will be deleted via G13 in time. What is the gain in holding this MfD? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that when I suggest in an MfD that a recent consensus is poor policy says that I "have no right" to do so, and warns me that my admin status will not protect me from sanctions for disruptive editing. But Legacypac here feels free to advocate deletion on the basis of a proposal that has not gained consensus and does not seem likely to at the moment. I detect a bit on inconsistency here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be an easy A7. There has been no clear proposal to extend A7 to draft space, only a broad unfocused discussion about all A criteria. Posting misleading statements like this against other editors at MfD adds to the evidence that DES would be better off staying away from MfD. If this subject is notable the creator has a week of MfD to show that now. Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a specific proposal to make all the A-series speedy deletion criteria apply to submitted drafts. It is now at WT:CSD. It was linked abov in this MfD. In support of it wrote:  . But if that thread is not a  then the comment in this Mfd that  is advocating applying a rule not even backed by a current proposal to a current deletion discussion. In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc Legacypac wrote  and later . Is it misleading to point out that the comments objected to there seem to me very similar to the comments the same editor is making in this MfD? Is it misleading to point out that the use of A7 on drafts is part of a proposal that does not yet have consensus? Indeed what in my comments here is in any way "misleading" much less inaccurate? It seems to me that in the face of such inconsistency, perhaps I am not the editor who should "stay away from MfD"?  But perhaps better yet, no editor should be told not to comment at an open discussion? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Children, find a teacher to take your quarrel to.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh. One of you is a teacher.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac and DES, as well as you and I, claim to be mature adults, the patronizing insult is unworthy of you. Legacypac and DES are not having a childish quarrel, but are voicing two entirely valid but conflicting philosophies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My age can be seen from my user page picture. My maturity can be judged from my various edits. I attempt to stay strictly within WP:CIVIL in these discussions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is ridiculous that this page should not be immediately deleteable by a competent reviewer.  I think it should be speediable per the CSD#A11/A7 criteria applying to submitted drafts, and to refuse authorisation for reviewers to do this to such obviously inappropriate submissions is insulting and demotivating to the reviewers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That view does not seem to have gained consensus yet. I posted in the WT:CSD discussion several times, as did a good many editors with various views. I very briefly summarized my views above. I am curious, by are you merely suggesting that an NPP member should be able to tag for review by an admin under a new/revised csd? Your comment could be read to imply more than that, but I suspect this was not your intent. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The WT:CSD discussion is unclosed, but maybe I should be clear that I am speaking my personal possibly minority opinion that A7 and A11 should apply to submitted drafts, like this one. Re, badly worded. I mean “put on a deletion pathway faster and harder than G13”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But even MfD seems to be too much for some editors wh seem dedicated to the view all drafts are sacred and untouchable by deletion. Some editors even oppose G13 cleanup. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is silly that MfD is needed for pages like this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per DESiegel's !vote. This can likely be deleted per G13 in six months anyway. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Check the first revision, much of which was blanked per WP:BLP. We have not established this draft is worth saving (only that it may or may not be in the future), and after straddling between "it's blatantly unencyclopedic" and "what's the rush?", I'm coming down on the deletion side because I believe those revisions should be hidden from public view as a courteousy to the subject. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:16, 26 June 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.