Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suneel Grover

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suneel Grover


Engineers resume now on it's fourth AfF submission. It's been deleted 2 times from mainspace too but restored as a contested G11 - see at Suneel Grover. Since this was in mainspace and draftified by an Admin when the user objected to deletion, mainspace criteria apply here. No encyclopedic purpose which leaves promotion or vanity page as the only reason to keep around. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt in view of the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * keep I don't profess to know about the subject, but the article does make note that the subject had been responsible for creating a number of things in his field (see the "notable contributions" section) and has published papers and is the head of a regional board. Also, the draft has only been reviewed by one editor. perhaps it would be better if another reviewer could check it and/or someone involved in Engineering. Do we have any other engineers/academics have a page, perhaps we could compare it to them? Egaoblai (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The page has been reviewed by more than one editor. First during NPR User:Narutolovehinata5 sought deletion A7 then User:Velella sought deletion A7. It was deleted. Then the creator objected and it was restored but to Draft. Then User:David.moreno72 correctly rejected it three times. I came across it up for review again and I brought it here. So including the Admin that deleted it that is 5 editors that have reviewed and rejected the page as suitable. Time to end this vanity project Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. Easily fails WP:GNG. David. moreno 72    13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. FailingGNG is a criterion for deletion at AfD,but not for a draft at MfD. Drafts exist for the purpose of bing improved, and we should not remove for notability unless it's utterly hopeless. This is not. But this is a promotional CV, and since    that's a good reason for removal here if it doesnt get improved, and it hasn't been improved after repeated tries  DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment requesting that a relevant wikiproject take a look at this. The reasoning "it's been resubmitted" is not adequate to delete a draft, especially one such as this which has a lot of sources and to my mind looks plausible. The Declining AFC reviewer has not bothered to give any constructive advice to the drafting editor, which makes this issue seem more of an AFC problem than anything else. Deleting this page because the writer hit resubmit "too many times" is not a valid reason for deletion. Egaoblai (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted as SPAM before. Let a non-COI editor draft it. Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 21 May 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.