Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr. Divya Jaitly/sandbox

 __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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 06:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr. Divya Jaitly/sandbox


Purely promotional content, fails WP:UP and WP:RESUME.  P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Huh.. this is a weird result to get on earwig / &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I tried it again in Earwig and got this, a violation possible with 54.3% confidence. (No longer a copyvio per Robert.) This can perhaps be speedied per G11 and/or G12 . – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] Yeah, I was right about to say the same thing (that and you were showing the same report as I was lol). It's just odd to me because it seems that it came from the same source, but I have no clue what template/outline thing both were using. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a data or cache thing, like when it can't use the search engine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, leave for AfC processes including G13. This is obviously a draft article, so it is not eligible for CSD#U5.  It is obviously a WP:Autobiography, but that is not a deletion reason.  The subject looks not Wikipedia-notable (WP:BIO) to me, but that is not a reason for deletion of a draft.  It is not intended as promotion, a userspace sandbox, noindexed, is a hidden place, and the professional http://www.divyajaitly.com/ exists.
 * Do not bring all weak drafts to MfD. AfC can deal with these.  There is no problem requiring solving, not enough to justify the MfD discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. This is clearly a WP:RESUME and purely self-promotional, irrespective of the namespace. It should be dealt with quickly, and not let it fester here. It may never or take a long time to come to AfC. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I totally disagree back. No resume includes a section on the subject’s death. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * RE WP:CSD. I seriously considered hitting G11, but didn't because sources exist, and the page is clearly in an early drafting stage.  The subject has plausible notability.  If a draft is not G11-worthy, then its not sufficiently egregiously promotional to not be able to be left to standard processes, AFC if submitted, and G13.  This draft is not egregiously promotional.  Many biographies can be read as promotional, but turn out to be fixable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - On the one hand, the copyvio is not a copyvio. The match is against another stupid copying of an incomplete Wikipedia draft to a web site.  That is not a copyvio issue, but two WP:CIR issue.  It is sufficiently stupid and hopeless, as an incomplete draft via the Wizard combined with very promotional language, that as long as we are here, we might as well get rid of this.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did not realize that the site in question was a mirror (of sorts) of Wikipedia. I do agree that this is still a candidate per WP:TNT. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 August 2019 (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.