Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Anjali Tendulkar (2nd nomination)

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: redirect to Sachin Tendulkar#Family. Closing this because it's been sitting. Despite participating via comments, I have no opinion on the content of the draft so I do not believe it is inappropriate for me to close this. No objection to a revert if any participants disagree.

Overall the consensus is that this draft is not suitable for mainspace due to the issues with notability and therefore should not be kept. Since participants are split between delete and merge/redirect, I'm taking the softer option and redirecting. History remains available for anyone who wants to merge to the target. I will be protecting the redirect to prevent recreation, as requested by several editors. No objection to future admins unprotecting at their discretion to permit creation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anjali Tendulkar

Someone continues to resubmit this draft without improvement because they can't solve the central problem - the subject only gets incidental press because she is married to a notable sportsperson. Notability is not inherited from family members except in very limited cases like a President's immediate family. The lede even says she keeps a low profile which is exactly the reason we shoild not have a draft about her. Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...even though it pains me to say it, from what I can gather from WP:MFD the article has to have been deleted once already via AFD and have "lingered" for a while without being improved. The second criteria is met but I dont believe that this article has gone through AFD.Domdeparis (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis, there is no requirement at MfD for a draft to have been deleted at AfD before it can be MfD'd. Given that most drafts don't make it to mainspace in the first place, such a requirement doesn't make sense. With that requirement, a draft would have to be published into mainspace, put through AfD, returned to draftspace, and put through an MfD before ever being deleted, which would be a total waste of everyone's time.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I've spotted your mistake: from your use of the word "lingering" I think you may have misread the last bullet point under the "Deleting pages in other people's userspace" heading. That bullet point applies to articles that were transferred to userspace (not draftspace) for improvement at the conclusion of an AfD, and is meant to prevent people from immediately MfDing a recently userfied article before the user has had a chance to try to improve it for a return to mainspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Premeditated Chaos: I think you are wrong because from what I can gather the draft articles were all originally in the userspace and then to make drafts easier to find the draftspace was created in 2013. This table dates from before the creation of draftspace at least as early as 2006 as can be seen here, [1]. IMO it is clearly out of date and should be revised. Also if you read WP:NMFD it clearly states that notability is not to be used as the primary concern for deletion. This article has already been in mainspace and could have been AFDed but instead it was nominated for speedy which was removed several times but before deletion it was reduced to a redirect and this remained for a couple of years until an editor added info and said that there was extra sources to come so I draftified it. Numerous articles get deleted through an AFD and then are restored by an admin through WP:REFUND and moved into the draft space so this requirement does indeed make sense. Domdeparis (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wrong. That heading says "Deleting pages in other people's userspace", then goes on to describe cases where a mainspace article has been recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace. It specifically does not include draftspace. In any case, the wording of that bullet point clearly states that it refers to articles that have gone through AfD, not that every page at MfD must have gone through AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to point out Draftspace did not exist when the table was written and it has not been updated since. We should agree to disagree then, you think I have misunderstood the page and I believe that you have. Be that as it may what is the concern that merits deletion in this case? I hope it is not notability because WP:NMFD says that this should not be the primary concern. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For info here is the RFC that deals with this question of notability in draftspace Rfc Domdeparis (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way I am misinterpreting the bullet point. It literally could not be more clear in what it refers to, and what it refers to does not require anything in draftspace or otherwise to have gone through AfD before going through MfD. I recommend you take a look through the MfD archives to confirm that that has never been a requirement in any MfD debate - I ~~closed~~ participated in (including closures) a solid 50-60% of them this year so I am extremely confident in this assertion. Your insistence on the point borders on the absurd.

{{ I closed a solid 50-60% of them this year so I am extremely confident in this assertion}}!? PMC, do you realise that by throwing around opinions like this with undisguised appeal to authority, you are making yourself WP:INVOLVED for all future closes? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, SmokeyJoe, what are you talking about? How does my indication of how active I have been at MfD in the past make me "involved" in every possible close in the future?? There is not, nor has there ever been, any kind of policy that requires a page to have been through AfD before going through MfD. I am extremely confident in making that assertion (the only such assertion that my percentage comment referred to) based on the significant amount of time I have spent at MfD this past year, where I have never seen that brought up in any argument whatsoever - because it isn't policy! You'll notice I first invited the user to look through the MfD archives to confirm my statement, so no, I'm not just making an argument to my own experience, I'm asking them to verify for themselves that that is not and has never been the situation. Point me to the policy or precedent that says otherwise. Otherwise I'd appreciate you retracting or refactoring your comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was nitpicking the precise wording of that statement. Having set a precedent with your closes, it is improper to cite your closes yourself as precedent. Domedeparis is right in some ways, he's not completely wrong, but I am throwing peanuts into a messy confusion, so probably its best if I ask you to not take me too seriously here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, I see. I didn't mean to imply that my own closes were some kind of precedent. I meant to indicate that the amount of closes I have done here means I have seen the majority of the discussions here this past year or so and therefore I was confident in my assertion that "AfD must precede an MfD" was not correct because I had never seen it argued by anyone in any other case. You're right, my wording sucked. I should have said "participated in" instead of "closed". I humbly submit my face for a trouting :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC) 😀 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually have a look at the history and from what I can see most of the deletes are stale drafts and repeatedly submitted drafts that were not improved. But there a quite a few articles that were nominated and deleted with a notability rational as the primary concern which from what I can gather is contrary to the WP:MFD. I'm not saying this is wrong I'm just making an observation. I was also pointing out that the table entitled "Before nominating a page for deletion" doesn't mention draftspace and only userspace simply because it was written before draftspace was created and "userify" has now, in most cases, been replaced with "draftify" so any reference to pages in userspace should, in my opinion, also concern pages in draftspace or this table should be rewritten to give instructions about drafts in draft space. You only have to check out the MFD discussions for before 2014 and none were listed as "/draft:", the first appeared on the 4th of January 2014 [2] and was deleted as being...nonnotable and not worked on...any road up, I wonder if the MFD page should not be clearer. Domdeparis (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns and whether or not we should delete drafts on them were never the crux of any portion of any of my comments. The issue I had with your original comment was the concept that a draft must go through AfD before being MfD'd. That is it, that is all. That is what I was asking you to look at the archives for. In fact the only time I've ever mentioned notability on its own in this entire discussion is below to state (basically agreeing with you) that straight notability is probably usually not a valid rationale on its own. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point and I do agree that my reading was incorrect to start off and my rational for keep was not correct but this brought up a point that the instructions do not mention draftspace articles IMHO because draftspace did not exist at the time and they have never been rewritten. We are in a kind of empiric system for deletion where criteria are not clearly defined. I would also make the point that a G11 deletion in a draft space is harsh because draft space is supposed to be a "safer zone" than mainspace. Someone with a COI is advised to go through AFC, COI and overly promotional does not mean that the article doesn't have its place on WP but the editor will need some heavy guidance and advising them to go through AFC suggests that they will get it here. The instructions for reviewing mention 3 cases for deletion: copyvio, test/blank/nonsense, pure vandalism/attack or transwiki for not in English otherwise the action is either merge accept or decline. It later goes on to say that blatant advertising g11 is to be used only for extreme case when the subject is not notable. In new pages reviewing we look less at the notability of the subject. I just want to understand and adjust my vision s that I am in line with the other more experienced editors here. Domdeparis (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless: the nom's stated concern is clearly that the article is being resubmitted without improvements that address the central concern for decline. Drafts are frequently brought to MfD with this rationale (again, without going through AfD in mainspace, because that is not and has never been mandatory) with the object of preventing the AfC reviewers from being forced to review the same unimproved draft over and over again.

I am very familiar with that RfC, having been an MfD regular for the past year, but since notability is not the nominator's major concern it is not strictly relevant here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has this article been submitted for review? Domdeparis (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably answer that myself, once. By myself before becoming an AFC reviewer. I moved it to draft space to allow the editor to carry out the edits and add the sources and then I submitted it for him. It was quite rightly declined by the nom he then nominated it for deletion as being non-notable, the result was keep [3]. There were subsequent edits notably a possible vandalism edit here [4] I corrected this edit as it effectively blanked the page here [5] this then replaced automatically my original submission (not a new submission) which was declined (rightly) this the nominator took as being a new submission and nominated for deletion a second time. Correct me if I am wrong but i am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for deleting but I will bow to your experience in this matter. Domdeparis (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for explaining the submission/decline history. I still submit it should be deleted now. Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've sort of begun arguing two separate points here: 1) that AfD is not required before MfD and 2) whether or not Legacypac's rationale of "repeat resubmission" is a valid criteria for nominating a draft for deletion. On the first point, I'm mostly trying to give you a better understanding of how MfD actually works in case you wish to participate in other MfDs in the future. On the second point, I'm not arguing that Legacypac's assertion is correct or incorrect, I'm trying to explain that "repeat resubmission" is a valid rationale for a deletion nomination of a draft where straight notability might not be, based on policy and precedent. By analogy, at AfD, "I am unable to locate sources to verify notability of this topic" is a valid rationale that can be debated and "this topic sucks and I hate it" is not. Whether or not a valid rationale is correct is decided by consensus in the discussion that follows.

Your argument that we must keep because AfD is required before MfD is not a valid argument because it's based on an incorrect reading of policy (which is why I started this discussion). On the other hand, your statement above that the draft is not actually being resubmitted repeatedly is a valid argument because it debates the nominator's actual rationale. Again by analogy at AfD - "I have sources so this is notable" is a valid response to a nomination, but "this topic is great so let's keep it" is not. Does that make sense? (Side note: I realize I'm being sort of pedantic but there is a distinction between "can we debate that point" and "is the point actually right"). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) that AfD is required before MfD IF the MfD nomination relies on a challenge to the topics notability. Only AfD tests for passing of notability, and even there is frequently fails to examine possibilities of merging. Notability involves determining whether notability attesting sources exist. The amount of work to do this makes it out-of-scope for MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment PMC is an Admin and one of the most experienced MfD editors we have. I'm pretty experienced here too with over 1600 MfDs, most of which I started. WP:NMFD is poorly written with undue weight to the nuanced responses to a "do you love your mom" type question. At any rate, we delete pages every day at MfD that have neber been near mainspace. This page should be axed as unable to WP:OVERCOME the lack of RS doscussing the subject in depth and because it violates BLP policy in various ways including not writing about "low profile individuals" and breaking the "notability is not inherited". I'll not WP:BLP policy applies in all namespaces. Legacypac (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that they are an admin and I'm sure that they are experienced even if no-one is infallible but all I'm saying is that notability is normally not a concern for MFD...it's written all over the place... This article would not survive AFD I have no doubt about that but I thought that was the reason why drafts are submitted for review. From what I can gather a draft that has been resubmitted without improving the notability is a candidate for deletion, or a draft that has gone stale is also a candidate for deletion. This one is neither of those so logically can't be nominated for deletion. The resubmission was a technical glitch that none of us had noticed. Your arguments about notability are 100% valid for AFD (I have nominated tons with the same arguments) but not here unless I am very much mistaken. I have been trying to look at AFC in a different way to New pages patrolling because from what I gather the idea is to be more lenient to allow editors to correct editing that is contrary to policy and guidelines, obviously attack pages hoaxes copyvio don't get a pass but if we apply the same criteria of notability to draft articles what is the point of going through AfC, the editor might as well just edit directly in mainspace if he is going to be treated in the same way. It seems a pointless exercise then. Domdeparis (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that if an editor has decided to go through Afc that means that they are looking for advice and are in good faith so deserve our help. Domdeparis (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was started in August 2015. We've been giving feedback on it and doing maintenance tasks for two years now. We can best help now by removing the title from Draft space so that people stop working on a dead end. A topic is either notable or it is not notable even before someone starts writing about it (recognizing the notability of a topic can change with new events). Draft space is a good place to work on establishing which it is but ultimately a decision needs to be made that Yes this is a notable topic for mainspace or No it is not notable and there is no point continuing to try to establish notability WP:OVERCOME. Draft/AfC is not a place to have pages about topics thst are not now notable (your garage band or run of the mill business etc) but which you Hope will become notable by promoting them. Most AfC declines are specifically because notability has not been demonstrated. Many more Drafts are declined because the lack of notability is so blindingly obvious we have developed common reasons (spam, hoax, resume, not facebook, etc) why a topic is not notable. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see where you're coming from but when you look at the flowchart and the instructions for AFC reviewing you get the impression that notability should not even come into the equation. Gives food for thought. Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge and Redirect to Sachin_Tendulkar#Family. User:Domdeparis is right. Legacypac is very clumsy with the details. The RfC linked from WP:NMFD is plain and simple, even though Legacypac doesn't like it. MfD is not a suitable forum for asking reviewers to example WP:N compliance for things that are being tentatively worked on. The evidence of the hopelessness of even trying that is at WP:N/N. Legacypac's natural inclinations would destroy MfD as a viable forum. Legacypac really should read the policy at WP:ATD, and stop wasting other's time with what he thinks is important. Save MfD for when someone reverts your redirect. NB. I don't really blame Legacypac, for all the stink he makes while shovelling the crap (this page is not "crap" but it is surrounded by crap), the problem is with the existence of DraftSpace as a repository inviting all kinds of unsuitable things, and the AfC system that is too tentative on closing the door on topics that will never be suitable for mainspace. This topic is suitable, but not as a stand alone topic, which is probably why AfC is hopelessly indecisive about it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there's no indications that the subject is notable per Wiki guidelines, or would ever become notable. No point in prolonging this any longer, so delete. There's no point in merging this to the spouse's article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many points to a redirect. I guess I should keep a list of them for everytime I see the facetious "There's no point". You may not value the points, but denying their existence is .... I did say "smerge", not merge, and there is a point, there is something in the draft that could fit in the article, and if any Sachin_Tendulkar article author has thought this, then policy WP:Copyrights requires keeping the histories available, or alternatives of more work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've created Anjali Tendulkar in main-space as a redirect. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sachin Tendulkar#Family and fully protect the redirect (and its mainspace equivalent) due to the history of reverting similar redirects for this topic. Any due coverage of this individual can be covered within that section. There isn't enough material here to make a full merge worthwhile, but if anyone wants to grab a source or something from the history it will still be available. The disruption by IPs since the last MfD has convinced me that this draft is more trouble that it is worth. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And strong support for the protection of the redirect, due to the history of tendentiousness. As the topic is already covered in mainspace, new content should go there first, it is a very poor use of DraftSpace to enable WP:UNDUE forking. Any expansion of coverage of Anjali should be governed by discussion and consensus at Talk:Sachin Tendulkar, and most importantly including the creation of a spinout article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I have to propose deletion to bring it here, but I'll support the redirect of this Draft and full protection of the redirect and mainspace redirect to foreclose off any recreation of this page by the individuals who seem intent on building pages for the whole family. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of specious wikilawyering and battleground stuff going on. If someone isn't notable and yet an article is repeatedly created for them then what we do is delete and salt, not create a redirect or leave something as a draft. In this particular case, redirecting is actually the reverse side of the coin for those contributors who say that we should not emphasise marriage to a notable man in lead sections of articles about women who are in fact themselves notable. Is there some technical reason why drafts cannot be salted? - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this kind of discussion is important for us newbies because it helps us understand certain processes that aren't particularly clear. If you want to bring a legalese slant to this then from what I can gather MFD is based on loose statuary "laws" but relies heavily on a jurisprudential system of decision making and for the different parties to come to an agreement and common understanding there has to be debate which has nothing to do with belligerence, and I think this has been proved if you read the different threads on the page. Domdeparis (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I am reading on this page is just making my eyes bleed. It's a simple question: can stuff in draft space be salted? If so, that is the simple solution to this because, like it or not, multiple recreations of non-notable articles and redirects should and do result in salting, and there is no reason to treat differently what is effectively similar disruption (well-intentioned or otherwise) in draft space . - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things in Draft space can be salted for the same reason that things in article space can be (repeat re-creation after appropriate deletion being the main one). Delete and salt would be a valid end to this debate. Redirect with indefinite protection would also serve the same purpose with the additional bonus of pointing any searcher to the correct article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (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.