Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khushiar/Mohak Meet

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. (Non-admin close) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khushiar/Mohak Meet[edit]

Mohak Meet was deleted by AfD here. We shouldn't have a copy of it available. JMHamo (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but why sir? i was trying to improve this article. Khushiar (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because it fails WP:GNG so comprehensively and that's unlikely to change for a while. JMHamo (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is main lead in two bollywood movie Anjaan Parindey and Kunal Kohli's Vartak Nagar. If you still think that is he not notable actor. then delete it. Khushiar (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - failing GNG is not a reason to delete userspace drafts. It is especially unacceptable to delete userspace drafts when they are being actively worked on by the user, as this one is. Deleting a non-harmful userspace draft over the user's protestations and active editing could be grounds for an ANI filing, to be honest. A2soup (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A2soup: We will have to agree to disagree on this. This actor is non-notable and that does not look like it will change anytime soon. Keeping a copy when it has been deleted by AfD on the Main space is just using Wikipedia as a web host. JMHamo (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it won't change? It's an actor - they can get more famous. Also, the creator claims the actor has starred in two films. The sources in this will not be English, so I don't think either of us can decide the validity of the claim or whether GNG is met. Finally, the creator is actively working on the page. It is completely inappropriate to delete a userspace page that an editor is actively working on in good faith, full stop. It's not webhosting if they're trying to write an article - read WP:NOTWEBHOST. A2soup (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A2soup has admitted there is no policy behind his/her assertions GNG does not apply to drafts. Until they can get policy changed We should not see that statememt made anymore. A Keep vote amounts to an endorsement of the page going to mainspace soon. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this. WP:GNG states that it is for determining whether a topic is "suitable for a stand-alone article or list." So what is an article? WP:ARTICLE (aka WP:MAINSPACE) says ""Articles" belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages (also called 'article namespace' or simply 'mainspace')." So my opinion is that while it is not explicitly stated anywhere, drafts are not articles and thus not covered by GNG. It is certainly not explicitly (or implicitly, I think) stated that GNG does apply outside mainspace. A2soup (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not only does GNG have NO language claiming that it does apply to drafts, the question posed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F is coming back overwhelmingly against any such interpretation. That being said, stipulating we agree (which I do not) that a Keep vote means endorsing the page going to mainspace, so what if it does? If it does, and you believe that the article creator's failed to make a case for the subject meeting notability criteria or the GNG, AfD it. It's scarcely a monstrous miscarriage of justice if that's how it plays out. Ravenswing 07:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is being actively improved, which means that the userspace draft is being used correctly. For better or worse, WP:NACTOR requires only a minimum of two significant roles in films, and this actor appears to have met that requirement. (Also, it's worth remembering that "sources" doesn't mean "sources that turn up in English-language web searches".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The editor is actively seeking to improve this draft; I'm seeing current edits. The time to argue whether or not the subject passes notability muster is AFTER it goes to mainspace, by way of taking it to AfD and defending that nomination. It is no more appropriate to huffily declare people non-notable before a mainspace article is even created than to CSD a new article seconds after creation. Ravenswing 06:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The edit history is at Mohak Meet not here. The editor made a request for undeletion which was correctly denied and then re-started with a new version. There's content in the deleted version while unsourced which could be used here and if this version is approved, I presumed someone would want the old version restored (or maybe not). I'd suggest that the editor be instructed to go to deletion review and ask for the original version to be restored and moved to draftspace rather than to allow for a new separate version when the editor's argument is basically for the same article but with more sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG simply does not apply to drafts in userspace. This editor is making a good faith effort to develop an article that would be appropriate for mainspace. Maybe that effort will be successful, maybe not, but we need to wait and see. Nominating this userspace draft for deletion is exactly the sort of misguided action that drives away new editors. Khushair: please do not give up! Wikipedia is not about pushing away people who are trying to write good articles. Even if you do a bad job writing a draft, nobody should list your draft for deletion with first reaching out to you and talking to you about their concerns. If you get discouraged, consider talking to one of the friendly editors at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Fagles (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it was deleted in a prior AFD matter? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it? There are hundreds of articles (if not many thousands) once deleted at AfD/CSD that were improved to viability. Spoken as someone frequently smeared with the "deletionist" slur, we absolutely don't want to be in the business of deterring editors from even attempting to improve such articles. Userspace is what such drafts are for, and forcing new editors to jump through hoops just for the sake of process worship makes no sense to me. Ravenswing 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone on the deletionist side of the spectrum, I do believe a userspace draft being actively worked on should be left safe from deletion and the editor allowed to try and prove notability. This is in fact the purpose of the user, draft and former afc space. A previous AFD should have no weighting especially one that is over a year old. We should not be applying main space policies indiscriminately in userspace as a reason for deletion, let's try and AGF and wait for it to either be approved via the AFC process or go stale and be G13'd. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because a previous version was deleted at AFD is not a reason to MFD this draft. Articles that are not retained at AFD may be userfied. The author is trying to improve this draft. Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.