Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nalini Prava Deka

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 no consensus as a draft with potential, this will probably come back as G13 in future, another six months won't hurt. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nalini Prava Deka

Draft has been declined six times with little or no improvement. Given this, it's unlikely that the draft will ever be improved enough. APerson (talk!) 12:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure The submitter is not responding to feedback or offers to help. The draft is stagnant. HAs enough time passed to justify deleting this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are copyright violations/quote-farming in old revisions, which needs to be deleted first, in case of an undeletion after this MfD. If deletion is carried out, both a revision delete (rationale RD1) and a page deletion needs to be done. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a worthless shallow draft, the sort of this that justified the drive to auto-delete most old drafts. Advise the author to register (Wikipedia:Why create an account?), do some editing to improve existing articles, and then expect to be treated with more respect by other Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is not the sort of thing to be deleted. What is at fault here is the editor and the AfC process, not the content. New editors should not be helped to write new articles by themselves. A competent writer can work out how to do that all by himself. This content should remain as a draft, or in userspace, which is where it would be if not for the AfC process. The content is connected to Bhabananda Deka. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It would be better for a wholly new editor to start again with a properly sourced article. If this person is truly notable, then an article will be created. Persisting with this version is wasting a great deal of reviewers time and effort to very little purpose. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sometimes deletion is the only sensible thing. The editor seems not to wish to participate, which is a strong indicator that it will not make forward progress Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reason mentioned by the two fellow AfC reviewers above. Articles such as this waste reviewers time in an already horribly backlogged system. Editor shows no sign of wanting to make improvements and is obviously just casting out his fishing pole hoping to get a bite from either a inexperienced reviewer or one that might be a bit tired and misstep. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could be improved, but it has 13 inline references and enough information to create an article from. It's not hurting anybody in the draft namespace. Also, please WP:DONTBITE. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 12:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerrit, I don't think deleting this article would be bitey. I don't think it's hostility to delete an article that's just being submitted over and over again with no improvements to the promotional tone (i.e. extensive use of WP:WORDS). APerson (talk!) 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably notable, and there's enough references to be fixable. The ones to delete are the ones that are both repeatedly submitted with no improvement and hopeleesly unlikely to make an acceptable article. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 July 2015 (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.