The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep since the article has been moved back to draftspace. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praneet sah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was not ready for the main namespace. My view is that it was accepted too early and should be returned to the Draft: space for further development. The gentleman is not notable, despite entering and being placed in a televised contest, and the references are misguided. One fails validation at all, one is dead, one "has a link to his blog in the left sidebar" and one is a youtube video from his own channel, but probably infringing someone else's copyright because it is the TV show he was placed in. The acid test of WP:42 is failed. Had I reviewed it I would have sent it back for further work with a strong suggestion that the gentleman lacks current notability. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD can now be considered moot as it has been moved back to draftspace. The "reviewer" is not currently associated with the AfC team, and so is not "authorized" to review and accept articles at this time. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with that if it is the (or a) correct procedure. This discussion does require closure, though. Logically any editor can perform acceptance, even misguided acceptance, whether a participant or not, surely? Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing though. Aside from admins, only those editors who are listed as an AfC participant should review, accept and move AfC created articles. If we allow editors who don't meet the requirements of being an AfC reviewer to perform those actions, then Wikipedia ends up with lots of sub-standard articles in mainspace before they are ready, which could lead to xFD discussions on the merits of their notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:02, 10 August 2014 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.