Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rajesh Verma

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rajesh Verma

After myself and another reviewer firmly declined this, and told them it was not going to fly the user resubmitted the page with no changes. Therefore deletion by MfD is warrented Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Zefshu probably is Rajesh Verma. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable self created entity having inflated views about himself. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, trusting his statement without checking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted 3 times - the second and third times there were no changes made. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD, I would !vote delete, based on the topic being promotional for a minor politician, and the first three references containing not material supporting an article and not useful for attesting notability. The fourth source is ok, but not sufficient alone. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The draft claims that the subject is the elected Deputy Mayor of Bhagalpur, Bihar, India. WP:POLOUTCOMES says that Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Bhagalpur is, according to our article on it ...the 3rd largest city of Bihar and also the headquarters of Bhagalpur district and Bhagalpur division. Clearly it is of at least regional importance. Thus this draft does not meet the WP:NMFD criterion that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy. (empahsis added) Obviously not ready for mainspace, but should not be deleted at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice quote but how does that apply to a deputy major? Picking a much more important random city we find 4 out of 5 deputy mayors have no page Mayor_of_New_York_City#Deputy_mayors and the post itself lacks a page. Looking for a city geographically closer Deputy Mayor of Karachi is just a redirect with no mention of the post or any holders of the post at the target. Please provide some evidemce that Deputy Mayors of regional cities with just 410,000 people are generally notable or change your vote. Otherwise this is just throwing up irrelevent data to support efforts to undermine the recent RFC results in another way. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the absence of other pages is not valid argument here see WP:WAX Egaoblai (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of pages on Mayors is not a valid argument that a lessor office is notable per WP:WAX (thanks for the link which illustrates my point nicely) Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should see the part where it says "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." is not a valid argument. Thank you. Egaoblai (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid counter argument to the assertion that a deputy mayor of a small city somehow passes NPOL. If that were true, we would be expecting to see some evidence that people in a similar position passed AfD regularly - but instead we are told mayors pass WP:NPOL. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that a deputy mayor and a mayor are not exactly the same case. This would not be a sufficient argument at an AfD -- a GNG-based argument would be needed there (but is not relevant here). My contention, which i should have made more explicit, was that a Deputy mayor is sufficiently similar to a mayor that it is not reasonable to believe that this draft is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace as specified in WP:NMFD, and so the suggested reason for deletion does not apply. I am not here arguing against the recent changes to WP:NMFD, rather I am citing them and saying that they should be applied as written, not using one part while ignoring the conditions that the RfC placed on it. Now others may disagree with my argument here. I won't tell them what views to express, and i would appreciate it if other editors did not try to tell me what views I may or may not express. That does not seem proper to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would mention that in NYC the position of Deputy Mayor is purely appointive, and in Karachi it is only very indirectly elective, according to our articles. Perhaps the examples suggested above are not as similar as their proposer thought. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DES must be advocating keep on the basis that a deputy mayor of a small city passes NPOL - that must be the thrust of the argument because otherwise the updated NMFD is exactly on point. The submitter resubmitted this twice to AfC with zero changes. A textbook case. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do object to your attributing views to me that I have specifically said that I do not hold. That is a stawman argument, and should not be made here. I am not arguing that a deputy mayor passes NPOL, that would be clearly false. Indeed a mayor doesn't pass NPOL. I am arguing that since mayors often are kept at AfD, in spite of not passing NPOL, deputy mayors at least sometimes will, and therefore we cannot safely conclude that this draft is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace. The middle step of that chain of reasoning, from mayor to deputy mayor, is the weakest link, but I think it is strong enough. Those favoring deletion have the burden of demonstrating that a valid mainspace article is unlikely here. Does anyone besides Legacypac believe that we can be reasonably convinced of that? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe no one can convince DES, since they reject notability as a concern at MFD and reject the recently passed RFC that codified repeated submission of a draft without improvement is grounds for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that the current version of WP:NMFD as modified by the RfC that Legacypac mentions, reads: Drafts are not subject to article deletion criteria like "no context" or no indication of notability so creators may have time to establish notability. Drafts may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MfD), but not solely based upon a concern about notability. It seems that the community as a whole rejects notability as a concern at MFD. I do think that the recent RfC was poor policy, I would like it reverted or modified. If it is to stand, the processes at AfC must be modified, and until they are editors should be advised not to use AfC. It strikes me as both poor policy and hypocritical to delete drafts on account of resubmissions when the messages delivered via the various AfC templates invited editors to do just that. I also pointed out above that the current test of WP:NMFD authorizes the deeltion of repatedly submitted drafts ONLY if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy. I haven't seen much in this discussion from those favoring deletion about why' this draft is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace, and I have argued that it may (although possibly not) eventually meet them, so this outcome is not "unlikely". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, I again ask Legacypac not to refer to me by the plural pronoun "they". I happen to identify as male and singular. I have duly filled out the relevant section of the preferences, so the various gender-aware pronoun templates such as {{pronoun}} and {{heorshe}} would work if Legacypac does not wish to recall this fact about me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no possible use in the encyclopedia. If he ever becomes increasingly prominent and eventually meets GNG an article can be written, but that can be said just as well about every non-notable person in the world. One thing the previous comment has right, we do need to revise the messages at afc to further discourage such resubmissions--we already do say, resubmit if you can fix the problem, but we need to really emphasize that into something like, Resubmit if you can fix the problem, but do not submit if you do not fix it. After the 3rd try, it should perhaps day even more strongly Resubmit if but only if you can fix the problem. Do not submit if you do not fix it, because repeated submissions without addressing the reasons for non-acceptance will probably lead to deletion of the draft altogether. perhaps along with a red or yellow warning notice on the user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 1 July 2018 (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.