Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Art Helton

 __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 as copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Art Helton


Old draft starting in userspace in 2010, brought to deletion here and moved to abandoned drafts in 2011, and brought here in February 2014. Was a single term member of the Maryland state senate so he could be notable if someone wants to adopt it to work on it. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the creator of Draftspace, If they're being deleted at MFD for only because stale, those MFDs are wrong. - 166.170.49.77 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: (1) the IP editor appears to be an indefinitely blocked editor, evading a block. (2) The idea that it is somehow "wrong" for consensus at MfD to delete a draft because it is "stale" is just the opinion of one editor, unsupported by any policy or guideline, or, so far as I know, by general consensus. (Indeed, the existence of speedy deletion criterion G13 shows that there is consensus that drafts can be deleted because they are stale, and the notion that somehow that is appropriate for speedy deletion but not for MfD is an odd one.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Keep  - As a state senator, he would be deemed notable under the guidelines for politicians. It should be easy enough to add a decent ref and move it to main space. -Whpq (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a copyright violation. I started to look for adding the above mentioned decent reference and discovered that the material in the article has been cribbed and altered from Art Helton's web site.  Although Helton is notable, and an article for him would be justified, this is not the foundation for such an article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:46, 25 January 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.