Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Anne-Marie Andrée Houard

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  keep. Salvio giuliano 08:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Anne-Marie Andrée Houard

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Hopelessly promotional, even in its unfinished state  DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 08:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That not even a small grain of truth can survive on Wikipedia, a platform flooded with liars and their mendacity and supposedly really good personalities, that was actually clear to me for a long time. Any of my well wishers who tried to create a page about me as lifelong creative music composer has been told the same reason for each deletion. I am real, I do exist, if you like it or not. Deian Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, I ask why we are going around deleting drafts if they are not being tendentiously resubmitted.--⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The message here from this draft's creator plainly shows that they're here to fire off grievances and not build an encyclopedia.  City O f  Silver  22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as a biography of a living person with no sources in English. User:WaltCip is mostly right about drafts, but drafts of biographies of living persons are subject to most of the same sourcing requirements in draft or user space as in article space.  The two external links are references in French.  The fact that someone exists does not in itself give them a right to a Wikipedia article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per User:WaltCip. I disagree with Robert McClenon on two points: first, the tone of WP:BLP makes it clear the requirements on sourcing in draft space are intended to prevent attacks, not bona fide attempts to build an article (no matter how unlikely that is to be successful). Second, there is no requirement that sources be in Engish. Bottom line is while I strongly suspect DGG's assessment of this draft attempt is correct, that is not a reason to delete a draft. Let it be worked on, and either it will come up to snuff or be abandoned and deleted then. In this case, the author was working on it in December (and is making edits now in response to this MFD) so it is not abandoned. It is not an attack page. So there is no need to delete. Martinp (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete abuse of Wikipedia for vanity autobiography. Not a legitimate draft. Dronebogus (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. User is learning how to edit Wikipedia. The page is non-offensive. —Alalch E. 19:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an attack page, not being tenaciously resubmitted, and drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. — { {ping&#124; ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 18:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, nowhere is it said that an article needs to have any English sources. — { {ping&#124; ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no such thing as "hopelessly promotional" in draftspace, as it can be fixed through editing - as is being done. That's the purpose of draftspace.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per ClydeFranklin. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.