Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Antonella Calvano



 __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: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Antonella Calvano


Abandoned draft lacking sources up for G13 but tagged requesting it go to MfD Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice you tagged a bunch of these last August, most of which haven't been edited since. Any objection to them just going to G13 at this point? VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object to them being G13ed. At the time I tagged them, I thought they were all potentially worthy drafts that should not be trashed by a single editor without discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Slapping a tag on a hundred drafts and expecting the community to waste time looking at them individually with no support from you seems WP:POINTY. I'd support deleting these en masse. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag bought the page 6 more months but they are now coming up on this report. User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Understood. Tagging to get 6 more months is reasonable, similar to a WP:REFUND or contesting a G13 template. Expecting a template to provide indefinite immunity from G13 doesn't seem realistic. VQuakr (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - If the author requests that it be kept, I will strike this !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A search for sources turns up not much of anything. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G13. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G13. How about deleting promising draft itself before it generates more pointless busywork? jni (delete)...just not interested 20:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How about just changing the text of the template to "requests speedy deletion be delayed"? That would mean posting the template gives the draft another 6 months, which is what any non-automated edit would do anyways. I'll do that now. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that solution a lot. Some are decent pages that should have been promoted instead of tagged. Many, not so much. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. That makes it clear that the template is not an infinite extension of draft's lifetime. jni (delete)...just not interested 15:32, 16 February 2018 (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.