Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Christos Arfanis

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Christos Arfanis

 * – (View MfD)

These copies of this autobiography were submitted by sockpuppets. Let's leave G13 for stuff that has been abandoned in good faith by cleaning up the non-good-faith stuff in advance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment I'm personally not in the "delete everything of a sockpuppet" camp, but am not really seeing why this is crud. There's not much to be lost here, which is why I won't oppose deletion. At the same time, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to delete more rapidly, either. --Doug Mehus T · C  16:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Establish consensus in policy that Sockpuppet product should be deleted. I see no reason to have a community examination of every Sockpuppet’s page, the downsides of that exceed letting them linger six months. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep New or inexperienced users often create multiple copies of drafts, wrongly thinking this will help or speed approval. The proper response is to identify one draft or copy as the best developed, and redirect all others to it. (No discussion is needed for such redirection.) This situation is not a reason to delete. If socking was involved, but G5 does not apply, that is not a reason to delete either. It is at least possible this person might prove notable with further sources, although I doubt it, which is another reason not to delete. There really was no good reason to even nominate this, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per and . I concur with both have said; my "gut instinct" was no compelling deletion rationale, but didn't know on which policy or grounds I could justify as a "keep." --Doug Mehus  T · C  22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The draft, per all of the above, redirect the user sandbox to the draft, as others will be more comfortable edting in draft-space. G5 does not apply because the creation was pre-block, and with good reason as it doesn't serve the deterrence rationale it's intended in that circumstance. If by some miracle this does turn into something article-worthy all the better, if not there's no harm in waiting 6 months while this molders on it's way to a G13. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:11, 25 January 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.