Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly being resubmitted with little to no improvement, and was warned that this would be MFD'd. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plausibly notable, but I cannot find any mentions in independent sources. We should try harder to accommodate Nigerian topics, considering the huge apparent systematic bias against, but tendentious resubmission is not OK. The draft is not suitable for mainspace. I advise the author(s) to get some editing experience with existing articles before attempting to write new articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya SmokeyJoe, 'learn to crawl before walking' ey ... solid advice, thanks.

Thanks also for acknowledging Wikipedia bias against non-Western content. What people call the 'developing world/countries' haven't digitized a lot of our things and it's a bit of a struggle proving selves/some things to people who demand, look for and interpret evidence in their own specific way(s).

Having this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Women%27s_International_Association be accepted/acceptable gave the impression that Draft:Medical Women's Association of Nigeria could be in mainspace.

Please understand 'constant resubmission' wasn't to be antagonistic or to stress gatekeepers.

Without being snarky this presents us with a concrete opportunity to ---> !!! try harder to accommodate Nigerian topics, considering the huge apparent systematic bias against !!! <---

Does the solution lie with who is attempting to create the article or those who need to understand where the creator is coming from? What can we do to make this better? Textor Alector (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previously submitted and declined 7 times, and a clear warning was given after the 7th resubmission that it would be nominated for deletion if resubmitted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe and Robert McClenon: Maybe we should give a final warning saying that the user will be reported to ANI if they keep disruptively resubmitting draft articles. This has become clear disruptive editing. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon 4thfile4thrank What appears disruptive to gatekeepers is an outsider (in this case entirely without malice) trying to contribute value. If ANI conducts an investigation then it might help? Textor Alector (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive. It is a hopeless draft. My advice to Textor Alector (talk · contribs) is to get experience in editing mainspace. Edit around this topic of interest, before diving in to write a new page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits have been made around the Nigerian Medical Assoc. SmokeyJoe :) respectfully, without intent to be disruptive. It's perhaps a huge ask to suggest people in your position (of power) reevaluate their opinions, but *shrug* ... what universality exists otherwise?

P.S. said without any naivete

Hey. Nigerian Medical Association lists Nigerian Medical Women Association (MWAN), that’s a start. However, it is in a list without any other blue links. Can any of the others be blue linked? Is this one the easiest? Not just Nigerian, but women, that’s a double bias against. AfC are gatekeepers, but you don’t have to use their gate. Consider WP:DUD. However, I am afraid that if you put this in mainspace, it would be deleted at AfD, because it has no independent reliable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Textor Alector: Constantly resubmitting the same draft is verv annoying and wastes the limited time of the limited number of reviewers. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Textor Alector - It would have been a good idea to discuss with the reviewers after the third or sixth resubmission, rather than simply resubmitting over and over again. We are aware that you were not trying to annoy the reviewers, but you should also be aware that repeating the same behavior over and over again is useless and does annoy the reviewers and does not increase the likelihood of acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Textor Alector - We are aware of systemic bias, including the under-representation of Africa including Nigeria. Discussing the systemic bias is more likely to be useful than persistently resubmitting the same draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Textor Alector: See WP:POINT for more info. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4thfile4thrank thanks for clarification + full apologies for (unconsciously) being an irritant. To my limited understanding the edits made after each rejection were sufficient to warrant resubmission.

Robert McClenon true, mea culpa. discussion/asking for clarification would've helped... and as far as i understood how to, i tried to ... another consideration of mine was that pointing out systemic bias is, or would be like crying foul or claiming victimhood (which is personally distasteful ...) that the issue was brought up by a completely unaffiliated Wikipedian demonstrates it objectively exists as a problem, and that is/was preferable. Textor Alector (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Textor Alector, if you want to write about this, you should aim to produce a much shorter article. I can see some sources on Google Books. You could produce a very short start/stub article with that, then fill it in (a little, not too much) with primary sources from the organization itself. You want to avoid it looking like PR. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much advice has been given to the author, but not much discussion of what to do with this apparently good-faith draft by an inexperienced editor. While the discussion is obviously leaning towards deletion, I'm hesitant to delete a draft by a communicative new editor without a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV how does this version read? 4thfile4thrank does current structure establish notability? SmokeyJoe Theroadislong i got some perspective/help via IRC, hence resubmission.

P.S. thanks for your time/tips, and pls pardon, don't mean to aggravate by sticking with this Textor Alector (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Textor Alector, article/draft “structure” does not establish notability. For notability, it needs two independent reliable sources that comment on the subject directly and with some detail (a couple of sentences, 100 words, but it’s the information in the comment that counts). For structure, it only needs to meet WP:Stub. The two good references are what’s needed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a dialogue has now been started with the writer, and the topic is possibly notable. Efforts to redress our bias against African topics are welcome, but descending into attacks against volunteers is not. We have notability criteria for a huge number of reasons—the Wikipedia that people read every day would not exist without it. Textor Alector should learn why we have this policy first and then work out how they can improve articles within our policies and guidelines. There is a big learning curve but editors are willing to help if you act politely and recognise that your first attempts may not be the best course of action. Feel free to ask me any questions you have on my talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version is much better and it can be improved. There are other secondary sources that haven't been used. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, although it still needs better references. I recommend first improving the article section Nigerian Medical Association#Affiliates and writing the biography Oludayisi Oduntan for Professor Subqat Oludayisi Oduntan. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilorv and potentially userfy per WP:DUD. Reaching out to an applicable wikiproject for aid may be a useful endeavor in this case as well. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:07, 21 December 2020 (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.