Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Niranjan BS

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: speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (who was a sock anyways). (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Niranjan BS[edit]

I'm nominating this article for deletion due to its failure to meet notability guidelines and reliance on unreliable sources. The subject of the article, an actor, does not appear to be notable and the sources referenced within the article are unreliable. The few sources that may be reliable, fail to mention the subject of the article. 👑 Matthew Wellington – 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT and WP:NMFD. Notability concerns are not a reason to delete from draftspace, but a reason for the draft to be put in draftspace. Follow the stand AfC processes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe, I really appreciate you writing here and for pointing me in the right direction in terms of the specific guidelines and policies that apply in this case. You are absolutely right here and I agree, having now updating myself on these, that this draft should indeed be kept. I endeavour to make myself more familiar with the processes here before making a bold move, such as nominating an article for deletion in the draft space. Once again, I thank you and appreciate your help! 👑 Matthew Wellington 06:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir, for recommending keeping of this draft. I am new to Wikipedia but did put sincere efforts to read about all applicable rules and did follow them all while preparing this draft. To be honest, I decided on my own accord to leave out many details that I had gathered about the subject and which would have actually made the draft more complete because I did not want to violate any Wikipedia rule such as no original research and the availability of verifiable evidence, etc., so added only info that could be readily verified in the references provided and carefully ensured that I was not adding even a single piece of unverifiable information. So did the whole thing with responsibility and even removed all unverifiable facts that a few editors kept on adding to the draft after its submission. Did read about Notability too, and I believe the artist is notable as he had won several awards and has done major roles in TV shows as referenced. So it was painful to learn that this was recommended for speedy deletion despite the sincere efforts into preparation of this draft, adhering to all Wikipedia rules to the best of my knowledge. I reiterate my sincere gratitude for your valuable recommendation that the draft be kept. Ss ram (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a draft. Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons. Drafts are declined for notability reasons; this draft hasn't been submitted for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Robert,

Having now updating myself on the correct way of going about this and reading WP:NDRAFT and WP:NMFD, it would seem that I have made a haste decision and should not have nominated this to be deleted. I appreciate you writing and going forward, I shall keep this in mind! 👑 Matthew Wellington 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir, for recommending keeping of this draft. I am new to Wikipedia but did put sincere efforts to read about all applicable rules and did follow them all while preparing this draft. To be honest, I decided on my own accord to leave out many details that I had gathered about the subject and which would have actually made the draft more complete because I did not want to violate any Wikipedia rule such as no original research and the availability of verifiable evidence, etc., so added only info that could be readily verified in the references provided and carefully ensured that I was not adding even a single piece of unverifiable information. So did the whole thing with responsibility and even removed all unverifiable facts that a few editors kept on adding to the draft after its submission. Did read about Notability too, and I believe the artist is notable as he had won several awards and has done major roles in TV shows as referenced. So it was painful to learn that this was recommended for speedy deletion despite the sincere efforts into preparation of this draft, adhering to all Wikipedia rules to the best of my knowledge. I reiterate my sincere gratitude for your valuable recommendation that the draft be kept. Ss ram (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Editors who are not familiar with draft space and do not understand how it is used can leave it alone rather than trying to tidy it up when it doesn't need tidying up. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matthew Wellington, your signature fails minimum contrast for accessibility. See WP:SIGAPP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated this, my apologies, and thank you again. It would appear as though I am learning quite a bit and I really do appreciate you telling me these and pointing me in the right places. I hope it is better now, Joe? 👑 Matthew Wellington 06:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your signature causes me visual discomfort. Somewhere in the notes at SIGAPP is a link to an external tool that will give the contrast value for two shades. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2024 (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.