Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chiara Andreoni

 __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: Speedied. Attack pages against non-notable minors are to be deleted, not edited. As a secondary point, I can't find any evidence that a person matching this description actually exists, so either the page is a hoax or it was created to harass someone of the same name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Chiara Andreoni

 * – (View MfD)

Vandal-originated, almost certainly dead on arrival. WP:BLP as policy, including WP:BLPDELETE; WP:DENY and WP:DOA as principle; also, if someone is looking for a wikilawyering-compatible excuse, WP:CSD "should not be restored". See Draft talk:Chiara Andreoni for background. I can provide more detail if there's any question that this should be made go away ASAP. --Closeapple (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Closeapple
 * notifying the admins that acted on the original G10. Did not notify the blocked vandal for obvious reasons. --Closeapple (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do have a question: Why is there no page history? Did the rest get revdeled or supressed, and if so, is the remaining single sentence really substantial enough for the page to only be partially deleted? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The page was created by, and tagged for speedy deletion by . I intended to decline the deletion, by reverting to an earlier version while making a small edit. While I was doing that deleted based on the speedy tag. My save apparently came after the delete and effected a restore of that revision only. The current page does not in any way violate BLP. DENY is not policy or guideline, nor a valid reason to delete anything.WP:SNOW (which is what DOA is) applies to discussions, not to deciding what to do with drafts. No good reason to delete here. KeepDES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:DOA and WP:SNOW are the same thing: 99% of the time that it's invoked is to close a discussion, but it actually applies to any process in which the end outcome is more or less inevitable. Obviously, it appears that DESiegel and I disagree on whether this draft was dead on arrival/inevitably doomed.  But, assuming that the consensus was that the draft is DOA, I called for WP:SNOW (or WP:DOA) becasuse the page has a privacy concern we're often sensitive about on Wikipedia &mdash; see Draft talk:Chiara Andreoni &mdash; so if it is doomed, then blindly hoping that "it doesn't hurt anyone" isn't really appropriate, and the "usual" 60 days or whatever helps no-one. --Closeapple (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The restored and amended version is not egregious and not in need of speedy, though I stand by my G10 deletion as it stood originally. At any rate, the creator is now blocked, and seems unlikely to get unblocked to contribute further. Thus we look at the draft on its merits, which are 1. we have no context, 2. no indication of notability, 3. it was created by a disruptive editor with ill intent. That's a delete from me. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:40, 3 June 2020 (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.