Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (3rd nomination)


 * 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 - Moved back to draft. - If MFD wasn't so useless I wouldn't of needed to do this in the first place but whatever someone else can deal with this draft or it can stay abandoned for the next 5 years. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 15:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Luke Cutforth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like the other AFD this too was abandoned so had taken it to MFD however I've the article to articlespace and renominated here, Anyway this has been deleted more than once at AFD and I believe via CSD too, Non notable youtuber - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG, If anyone can find any substantial sources I'd be more than happy to keep, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 03:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong procedural objection - This situation is very similar to the practice put forth for evaluation by the community at B3 and B4 of WP:UP/RFC2016, which the community expressed strong condemnation towards. Pages should not be moved to the mainspace to test their suitability for it, rather only if one believes them to be suitable for it. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 05:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is different to what was considered there, as this was in userspace, was deleted, undeleted to draftspace for improvement, slightly improved, and then abandoned. The only reason that this page is not to be deleted as a copy of deleted material is the slight improvements.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Me & SJ at times have very different opinions at MFD and although on this one he didn't say keep I didn't think he was sure and similar to the other AFD I didn't want him in 2/3 days time saying Keep and then that's it ...it's kept ....., I did this because at the time I thought doing it this way would keep everyone happy - I didn't want this sneakily deleted or to be a "backdoor deleted" - I simply disagree with MFD and instead of essentially wasting everyone's time there I thought I'd bring it here where a much better discussion could happen, I do admit however this perhaps shouldn't of been moved and I apologize for doing so, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Draftify with a trout to the nominator for misuse of the move process. Drafts that are not ready for mainspace should be left in draft space or deleted as drafts.  Moving a draft into mainspace when its deletion as a draft is being considered is an abuse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - G4 might have been in order and might still be in order, because I can't see the deleted drafts. But AFD is not the way.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have read the RFC, and I agree that there was strong community disapproval of dealing with unsustainable drafts by moving them into mainspace for deletion. I concur with the objection by User:Godsy.  If User:Davey2010 admits that he made a mistake by doing this, then move this back to draft space for a snowball closure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.