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 this draft. I would not normally encourage a new editor re-creating a page previously deleted at AfD to move it to mainspace without a check either with the deleting admin or with DRV. I have therefore not un-protected the page Komal Jha and will leave that decision to DGG ( talk) who deleted the previous version and salted the title.  JohnCD ( talk) 22:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Draft:Komal Jha

Draft:Komal Jha ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been rejected several times and the history at Komal Jha also suggests this cannot be accepted anytime soon considering the 2 AfDs (Added: By this, I meant the AfD tags, the first AfD and then the G4 tag afterwards) and other concerning deletions. This could, of course if needed, simply be blanked or whatever, and perhaps restarted later but I see nothing assuring from that happening and it's likely this simply be deleted for now. I also not get numerous deletions led this to being locked. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Nicely formatted and filled in draft for an actor. Notability is questionable, yes. Evaluating notability is hard work, and is only properly done for an article and at AfD. In addition to the tools at AfD, I like to review incoming links, but these are not allowed if it is a draft. The complexity of these issues is a flaw to having DraftSpace.

If the article can be blanked and onblanked in future, then it can be left alone indefinitely.

If the author wants to ignore reviewer comments, then I suggest that the author should draft directly in mainspace. Wikipedia was made by drafting in mainspace, and this incubator/draftspace is Wikipedia going off the rails.

I see that " Komal Jha" has multiple hits in mainspace: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Search&search=Komal+Jha&fulltext=Search&searchToken=8fxhyx1ysyxnmlrszocrd643n) If the article were to be drafted in mainspace, the meaningful mentions, excluding false positives, can be identified by the tool WhatLinksHere.

The nominator mentions "the 2 AfDs and other concerning deletions", which is extremely frustrating to me. I am looking for related AfDs or other concerning deletions. Please substantiate or desist with alleging innuendo. It should not be the job of MfD reviewers to research nominator allegations.

I guess that you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komal Jha? Is there another? Looking at User_talk:Ch.th#Komal_Jha, I see that the author submits that she has addressed the reasons for deletion at AfD. As a rule, I recommend referring allegedly fixed recreations to the deleting Admin, in this case User:DGG. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You suggest that an editor who expressly refuses to follow the directions of reviewers at AFC should instead be rewarded by having their page moved anyways to mainspace and then what? Let them continue to ignore other editors until they are blocked for being disruptive? Or just give them free reign because they don't listen to others? Unless way over the top, the only punishment in draftspace is basically having your draft deleted. In mainspace, screwing around and ignoring the MOS and others is a much more serious problem. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

No, I don't adhere to your language of rewards and punishments. AFC is not mandatory, the editor would be better off to ignore AFC and go straight to mainspace, and meet the consequences more directly. Failure to follow instructions should not result in "punishment", perhaps you should rephrase that? The deleting admin supports keeping the draft. Is the draft essentially the same as that deleted at AfD? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

It would likely be tagged and deleted per G4. Or perhaps dragged to another AFD discussion where the standard is going to be higher than MFD. I'd rather we have some mechanism to work on the draft and if the editor doesn't want to deal with the reviewers here or if someone thinks someone is being too strict, the remedy isn't "go create it anyways." In the past, people went to WT:AFC and the pages were overturned and mainspaced then. Otherwise, I've gotten questions on my userpage from people, people regularly come to the IRC channel and there's other methods but suggesting that someone explicitly ignore the prior AFDs and create the page again after being rejected at AFC for a draft that was deleted in an AFD is not helping the editor in the long-term and frankly won't entice people to keep it in mainspace either. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I spoke to the author and they were quote persistent that "it was no matter the previous deletions because they were apparently not relevant" but even they are and no apparent t improvements now would be any differences because this AfD was only somewhat over 6 months, certainly not enough time to become better convincing and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, you spoke to me. I understand that the article is not approved for the publishing, fine. I am curious on why the draft has to be deleted. Don't you think it is discouraging for a new contributor like me? Please review. Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

If it's not ready and you ignore all suggestions on how to get it ready, what is point here? To keep this around for you to further ignore us? To keep this around so that it maybe slips by someone? Why waste the time of the reviewers having to review a page when you don't respect their time enough to at least listen to what they suggest? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't understand the point of ignorance here ! If it is not proper, please correct it. It is pleasureful to have a constructive approach rather than the other way. Could you please help in contributing to the article? OR give some pointers? Why are some of you bias yourself thinking I am not welcome to comments. User:SiwsterTwister said, there is notability issue, which was answered with sufficient references. Then he is saying it can not be published again, because it is too soon from the time it was speedied in October 2015. I am not able to understand why ! Telling just a NO, rather than helping to correct the content/structure/anything else is not the outcome of any review process. Review process is to comment to help the improvement constructively (of course ! some of you are doing it! appreciate that !)

Well, WHAT NEXT ? What should be done to improve this and bring to a logical conclusion? There should be a way ahead, what is it? Please advice. I will be more than glad to be collaborative. Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think there is possibly potential for an article; therefore the draft should remain. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – As I stated in an AfC comment on the page, the subject presently meets WP:BASIC. Improve it (e.g. by copy editing) and then publish to Main namespace. It's also too bitey of a nomination here; the deletion nominator here declined the submission ( diff) and then knee-jerk nominated for deletion just over 24 hours later ( diff), without allowing time for the interested contributor to really respond or copy edit the submission more. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Basic is too lenient because her filmography basically seems to state there's not a fruitful career yet thus still questionable for notability. I simply nominated this because, considering the deletions, it's important to weigh this and therefore also suggests it's not acceptable for anytime soon at least. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep and direct to WP:DRV. First, my impression is that AFC is expressly not supposed to be dealing with pages that have already been deleted in mainspace. It's kind of overrunning DRV's function in that way. Second, if people see potential but the editor editing the page refuses to listen, then someone can create a forked draft (indicate which version you are copying in the history), at Draft:Komal Jha (2), clean it up properly and mainspace that. From there, we can split the past history with the newer version and deal with it in mainspace. It's rare but it's been done before, some pages had as many as 4-5 various editors working separately and then combining or getting one passed and then merging the remainder. I'm not seeing the indication that it's going to move forward at this point so I suggest that the editor be told to go to WP:DRV and show that there is enough to support a new draft. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be under AFC at all to me. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I would agree that AFC shouldn't be receiving resubmissions of deleted content. The solution there is to remove the AfC taggery, that would mean all of them including the declines. As the AfD closer supports keeping, WP:CSD#G4 is not appropriate. I don't know what joy you might possibly get from DRV. It all reminds me of my impression that all of the Article incubator, AfC, and DraftSpace have been poorly baked ideas, they generate more work than good. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• DRV has generally been the discussion area for "could the AFD be overturned" based on either new information or just purely a bad close. Generally, it can be done simply as "here are high quality sources, or a change in consensus, let me start a draft or mainstream my draft." See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 25 for UFC 157. It seems here that there's agreement on having a draft but now, it's an argument about how/if it can go to mainspace. The UFC one I think went on a WP:RM or just by request to an admin, both of which I think are equally the same to me as having AFC do it without the game-playing that comes from the AFC notices and without bothering the AFC reviewers (or if the admins reject it under G4 I guess per IAR). And yes, that would require removing all the tags as I did here. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• "could the AFD be overturned" is a question for the deleting admin. This case is a conundrum for me. Is the draft much improved on what was deleted? (bolded, as the most important question) If so, I would prefer to see it sent to mainspace and optionally tested at AfD. Again, I think observe that AfC reviewers are working to a higher standard than that required to avoid deletion at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment Here is my understanding of the situation:

Although I did the most recent deletions of the article , I did them on the basis that 1/ the conclusion of an AfD discussion which led to the inevitable conclusion that the existing version was pure promotionalism, and was admitted to have been written by a publicist for the company. 2/It was recreated in essentially the same version. (It had previous been deleted several times by another admin as G11.) The version currently in draft space is essentially the same text as the promotional version deleted 5 times previously, and is certain to be deleted once again if moved to mainspace, probably once again by speedy G4. Despite the identity of the article with the one written by the publicist, the present editor, who has worked on no other topic in WP, denies any conflict of interest. What the ed has however done, is added additional references.

The additional references indicate that a proper article could probably be written that would show notability , despite the notorious unreliability of Indian newspapers in film reviewing. Therefore I !voted above to keep the draft, because it could be improved.

The present editor has asked me on my talk page how to improve it. The first step is to remove the worthless existing contents, and then concentrate on the sourced discussion of her actual film roles. (I am assuming that their statement of having no coi is true; if otherwise, they should not be working even on this draft, considering the history of the article . Publicists are almost always unable to write satisfactory articles, and the history here is an excellent example. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

"additional references indicate that a proper article could probably be written" says to me that G4 can no longer applied. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

That's one admin's opinion. If listed and someone else disagrees, it would be deleted. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

If listed at AfD, it could go either way. If by "listed" you mean tagged G4 ... it only takes one person's reasonable disagreement to trump most speedies, including G4, and this is a clear statement from the deleting admin. It is now G4-proof, and I have no doubt that this would be agreed at DRV. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I added "(e.g. by copy editing)" to my !vote above. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree. However, a lot of this place operates closer to randomness of the person reviewing it. It's pretty much as promotional as the prior versions and is although it has more sources it's beyond over the top in exaggerating her "roles" in these films. While Indian films clearly aren't the same at IMDB as American films, her role as "Student" in 3 Idiots is not significant. The main sources here are all related to an argument about the clothing she received in another film. The editor here has been aggressively trying to get this published again since December. We don't have an anti-AFD system so it's going to be kept and unless someone else cares to work to clean this up, there's nothing stopping it from being mainspaced and going through AFD again where the poor sourcing will actually be dealt with. Otherwise, we go into a loop of creation and deletion with this as someone clearly wants to post these biographies for various actors and actresses. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I think there is again some misconception here. I haven't been 'trying aggressively' to get it published. I have consulted an admin user to let me know the procedure of getting it published. There is a difference between exploring the possibilities persistently and aggressively trying to get it published. I sincerely hope you have no bias about new contributors that they are promotional agencies. Just to clarify you, I am not. I am seeking the guidance to get an article ready within the policy framework of Wikipedia and who other than a team of admins do it ? Looking forward to your opinion. Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 08:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

For months, this has literally been the only thing you've been working on. And you never did answer this question of mine. And even now, when people are voting on whether to delete this draft, your only concern is still publishing it. This is such rampant Wikipedia:Single-purpose account behavior that it's suspicious. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Well ! I can answer it now. I mean to say, ASAP after the article is in shape to publish. The article may be in a shape to publish after some contributions are done as admins may deem it as appropriate. I do not have any objections if you wish to help in contributing the article. Also, since it is my first article on Wikipedia, I want to complete this and move on to next article. You will see more contributions in future from me on Wikipedia. Hope this answers your question/s.

I have received a set of article writing tutorials from User:SmokeyJoey yesterday and currently going through them to write the better article. Thanks a lot and look forward to more support and guidance ! Ch.th ( talk) 04:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello Everybody, I have almost re-written the article now. Could any of you take a look at it at leisure? One thing I need a guidance on Wikimedia images too as any images that I upload with the consensus of the copyright owner themselves and mention a linkage to them while uploading to Wikimedia Commons, still it is being removed. Could someone throw some light? Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 08:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• I agree with the previous review "Per sources presently available, the subject meets WP:BASIC at this time. See various sources in the References and Further reading sections. North America1000 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)", this draft is ready for mainspace. I agree that WP:BITE applies, and that it is unfortunate the user was never welcomed (the welcome template provides very helpful links for a newcomer). Standard advice from me to any serious drafter: Forget AfC and draftspace and AfC reviews. When you have done your best, WP:Move it to mainspace. If nominated at AfD, participate in the discussion that happens there. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the inputs and guidance ! But, could you also let me know how to go about it next? I have done a significant job on the article, I suppose. But, please look in to this for any lacunae and let me know how can I correct it, if any. If all well, please input me on how to do WP:MOVE or anything relevant. Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

First, you should wait for this MfD to close. If closed with "delete" I would take it to WP:DRV. Otherwise, the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#How_to_move_a_page seem pretty clear. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

User:SmokeyJoe, Appreciate the response ! In the meanwhile, please feel free to suggest edits, if any. I would be glad to accommodate it.

I also want to thank User:Northamerica1000 for all the contribution in shaping the article better. Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 05:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello There ! Is this MfD closed with any decision yet? I am unable to see the entry of this article Category:Miscellaneous_pages_for_deletion&from=K. Does this mean this article is no longer nominated for MfD ? Please let me know. Thanks ! Ch.th ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

No, this MfD has not been closed with any decision yet. Sorry. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the update on the thread. Could you guide me on how can I track the progress of this, so that I can move on to other tasks further? Thanks! Ch.th ( talk) 07:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Two ideas:

(1) You should do some edits to the encyclopedia that are not directly related to Komal Jha. You don't want to look like an extreme WP:SPA, and interacting with others on a separate subject is very good experience. Maybe another Indian actress?

Bit cheeky, but we could try {{ Admin help}} and beg the incoming admin, who would hopefully be so far uninvolved in this. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

<would you please close this MfD? Six weeks in, and an eager editor Ch.th ( talk · contribs) is waiting on the result to move it to mainspace.> -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:10, 24 June 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.