Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Saman Ehteshami

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Saman Ehteshami[edit]

On six occasions, the editor has responded to a declined draft by adding a bunch of references that do not serve to verify the statements made in the article. Some of those references do not even mention Ehteshami. I consider this tendentious editing. The editor has not engaged in any dialog with any of the reviewers. It is a shame, because the subject is probably notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No reviewer or anyone else has attempted dialogue with the editor. Templated messages don’t count. “Saman Ehteshami was selected as best artist at the 2003 Fajr International Music Festival” is a fair starting claim to notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I would agree if those templated responses were purely automatic but there have also been four hand-written comments giving advice on next steps, which the editor has ignored. Today, they've removed the MfD notice and AfC comments, added more references that don't even mention the subject, and demanded that I accept the draft. This meets the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, and AfC procedure is to take such drafts to MfD. The alternative would seem to be to TNT it, find some reliable sources, move it to mainspace as notable and then apply page protection. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Templated talk is not inviting to read, and very discouraging of replies.

The author clearly WP:DRAFTOBJECTs.

The subjects looks likely notable. The author has claimed the subject has a Persian Wikipedia article, which should be investigated.

I have advised the author of WP:DUD, because clearly AfC is not working for him.

—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have copied and pasted into mainspace at Saman ehteshami, but it lasted there for all of six minutes before being draftified. Two minutes later, the creator submitted it for review. I have declined it as the original draft (the subject of this MfD) is still there awaiting review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. User:DMySon effectively move-warred in re-draftifying. He should not use draftification as pseudo deletion over the wishes of the author. Put it back in mainspace, and send to AfD. The author is clearly not getting the message from AfC, let AfD sort it out. It is plausibly notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your note about the Persian language version. If the native language article keeps getting deleted, that’s a good contributing reason at en.Wikipedia to delete it from AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the history/logs. User:DMySon did the first draftification, so nothing close to warring. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, the draft is submitted and declined multiple times without improving it. May be the subject notable but it needs significant coverage to justify notability. DMySon (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:
- - There is a language problem, and there is no obvious answer as to how to give instructions to the submitter that the submitter will understand.
  - There are no specific guidelines for what the reviewers should do with drafts that are tendentiously resubmitted, as to when they should be Rejected and when they should be nominated for deletion. However, in my opinion, this is a case for Rejection, or some other less drastic action than nomination for deletion.
  - I concur with the nominator and with DMySon that the author is resubmitting without trying to address the comments.
  - I respectfully disagree with User:SmokeyJoe's criticism of efforts to communicate with the editor. The editor was given advice that they did not follow. I advised the editor to ask for guidance about musical notability at the Teahouse. I advised the editor to indicate which of the musical notability criteria was satisfied. Maybe the editor didn't understand.
  - It is not helpful for the editor to state "That's an order" in an edit summary, and reviewers are under no obligation to obey the order or to try to engage in dialog about it.
  - It would still be a good idea for the editor to request guidance at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (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.