Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chris Obi

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. Note that the delete !vote at the end of the discussion, stating that the "current state doesn't satisfy wp:NBIO" is not particularly valid to qualify deletion of the page, because topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chris Obi[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice reviewed now in 1 day and yet no actual changes or anything to suggest convincing in our essential policies; sources, as shown are simply advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The author may not have provided any sources you consider reliable, but the quickest of googles clearly shows Chris Obi is definitely notable. Feel free to keep declining the draft until you think it is ready (a process that may be expedited with providing the author with more feedback than "Not satisfying our basic policies", for instance, telling them their current sources are advertising as you have informed us here), but I don't think we should delete drafts for subjects that should have articles. A2soup (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What currently exists here is a clear violation of WP:NOT, our main policy for articles and what we use for such matters, so even though there's sourcing, none of it supports a policy-based notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Advise the author, Melisewilliams (talk · contribs), to edit existing articles first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly notable. Provide useful help / show how it's done. To a new editor, the decline reason reads like gobbledygook. Lyrda (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How so? It helps to show since 2 reviews showed no improvements and I'm not sure how "Not satisfying our basic policies" couldn't be any clearer since that's exactly what our own policy pages say for subjects. Not only has this been confirmed as a paid advertisement (as history shows), but the current improvements even now are simply bare URLs to PR announcements, mentions and similar = Not what establishes an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about the topic, not the article. The draft was declined because it's in a poor state. That's easy enough to mend. Lyrda (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much wrong here. The subject looks notable, good. The author, Melisewilliams (talk · contribs), has never edited any other article, made a userpage, posted a message, bad. The author has never been welcomed, bad (just done now). The draft has an unused talk page, bad. The AfC instructions have sort of been followed, but the efforts have been rewarded with perfunctory templated messages on top of the article, extremely unintuitive as to how to be responded to. Now to see SwisterTwister write "couldn't be any clearer", when the totality of correspondence looks like monkeys barking at each other across great distances, and SwisterTwister's tortured English only barely comprehensible, and references to "our basic policies" simply not including sufficient detail to be meaningful. The entire AfC thing should be shut down. It is a waste of so much time on so many people's part, with such a low rate of quality output. My advice to Melisewilliams is to follow the hits found by the search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=%22Chris+Obi%22&fulltext=Search and to spend some time improving the content there, including redlinks to Chris Obi, and only after that, if the redlinks stick, to attempt to create a non-WP:Orphan article directly in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete current state doesn't satisfy wp:NBIO Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 05:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is about the topic, not the current state of the article let alone a draft. Lyrda (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator has started a new article Chris Obi in mainspace again, consisting of a single sentence.[1] -Lyrda (talk) 20:17, 25 February 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.