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: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Roshan Bhondekar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Title has been salted in article space by User:Bishonen due to tendentious resubmission. Time to get it out of draft space also. See also comments by User:Hoary at User talk:Topauthors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The would-be author would still be free to create a (greatly improved) draft in their userspace and either get the OK from Bishonen for re-creation or (if Bishonen didn't respond or responded in a way the author thought unreasonable) appeal elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has been submitted three times, at first with sources such as Bhondekar's facebook and twitter accounts, later with promotional interviews and blogs. This shows the author was trying to improve the sourcing, and not resubmitting blindly, which is a good thing as such. But I'm afraid it also shows there simply aren't any sources such as envisaged in WP:AUTHOR. The first version of the article was written by User:Roshan.bhondekar, the second and third by User:Lovethekeytooptimism (that's the name of Bhondekaar's book) and now this draft by User:Topauthors. None of the three accounts have done anything else at Wikipedia, and I'm afraid I can't muster the AGF to believe they're different people. The draft should be deleted too, as it has the face of an end run round the salting of the article. (I too have now commented at User talk:Topauthors.) Bishonen | talk 10:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Has written one non-notable book. This is just using Wikipedia for self-promotion. Bhondekar needs to be adviced to using just a single account. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• jni, I believe Topauthors is in fact evading the block on User:Lovethekeytooptimism (an account which I indeffed for promotion when it recreated the article created by User:Roshan.bhondekar just a few hours after it had been first deleted). But I too feel the individual needs to be advised, rather than slammed with repeated blocks. Bishonen | talk 11:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree with your admin actions in this matter. I don't see need for further blocks, even if technically they are evading. User:Roshan.bhondekar has three goodfaith, unrelated edits in history. There is another copy User:Topauthors/Draft, should we keep it until it either improves or wait for it to become a WP:STALEDRAFT? I'd delete all copies in this current process, unless improved during this MfD that is. I see no reason for a second round to get the final copy deleted, as these things very seldom improve. We really should have a total prohibition against ever creating an autobiography! jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, deleting User:Topauthors/Draft is probably an unnecessary application of IAR and might be unkind; let it languish in userspace, I say. When this draft is deleted (as looks inevitable), let's salt it, that should have the same effect. I guess the thing about a total prohibition against autobiographies is that those who create them rarely acknowledge they're doing so, so it would be a bit of an empty gesture. "No, no, I'm just an admirer of his work." Bishonen | talk 12:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• IAR? this has nothing to do with IAR. I was thinking about process economy of our deletion processes. Someone might delete the copy citing CSD G4 (not noticing there are people in this MfD wanting to keep it for potential improvement (I don't see how that could be possible)), or it might languish for some time and then be nominated to MfD and routinely deleted per STALEDRAFT, as countless other obsolete userspace drafts are. Deciding the faith of all copies in one process keeps things simple. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think that we don't have a total prohibition on autobiographies, and maybe the question is whether we should. They are only very strongly discouraged. I think that I have twice (I think twice) seen reasonable autobiographies. In one case it was by a senior US government civil servant, who, by the nature of their specific job and its duties, would have been an extremely experienced technical writer and actually capable of sorting chaff from wheat. As Bishonen says, single-purpose accounts often lie as to whether they have a conflict of interest. But this isn't relevant to this particular discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't see anyone wanting to keep this for potential improvement, except the author making an empty request for help (meaning that they are requesting that we ignore common sense). I agree that when this is decided all of the drafts should be thrown out. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Beware WP:BITE. Appears inherently too promotional, lacking independent coverage. Author should read WP:COI, follow the advice, and correspond like a human, or understand that their contributions will be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as clear advertising, and our policies are explicit about it. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: @Hoary: @Robert McClenon: @Jni: Draft article has been updated & resubmitted, as per the suggestions. Kindly review the provided references which has been published in international media i.e. worldnews.com & american magazine. We have provided the required information for our promising signed author, as we are from technical team for book publication board. We request you to have a review and guide us on to make this draft version into article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roshan_Bhondekar - Topauthors is an account owned by rising publisher in India (Technical Team). flashingbooks is an account owned by executive publication board team for providing legal information about recent news. We have provided references via both accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topauthors (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topauthors (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ask four people to guide you to make this draft into an article. I'm one of the four. In view of your use of role accounts, your flouting of conflict of interest guidelines, your seeming lack of interest in anything other than the promotion of one writer, and the feeble claim to notability of this writer (Worldcat doesn't show that a single library possesses a copy of his book), I'd guide you toward turning the draft into an article on some other website, perhaps your own. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2016 (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.