Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daniel Keem (2)

 __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) 02:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Keem (2)


submitted 4 times with no substantial improvement and no conceivable chance of making an article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As I understand it, there is no ground for deletion of AfC submissions based on a number of failed drafts. After six months of inaction, of course, they can be routinely deleted. Let's not rush things. Newimpartial (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The repeated submissions with no real effort made to address the problems noted is a waste of AFC reviewer time. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY applies. There isn't a chance this youtuber is notable and to allow repeated submissions to waste other editors' time does not help to improve this encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY aside, there is a hard-fought consensus around the retention and deletion of articles in Draftspace. I don't think the risk of more editor time lost if this article is resubmitted outweighs the value of that WP:CONSENSUS. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:N does not apply in draft space, per WP: STALE. Period. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , if a draft is never going to be acceptable as an article, there is no point in letting it sit around for six months or (worse yet) letting editors waste other editors' time by continually resubmitting a draft that will never go anywhere. Delete it now, and move on with life. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above comment is contrary to WP:CONSENSUS as indicated in WP:STALE, and also contrary to the business rules at Articles for Creation.Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not finding any indications that this person meets any of our criteria for inclusion. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:N does not apply in Draft space. See WP:STALE. That means it can't be used as a rationale for an MfD. Give it its six months, and then delete it according to policy.Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * STALE also says For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely. Additionally, point #6 (if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion) gives a user every right to request deletion. Please don't try to out-rule the admins. Primefac (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete odds of it ever meeting our inclusion criteria are about nil. Let's stop wasting people's time here. the AFC backlog is bad enough already as it is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This draft is being tendentiously resubmitted. Flush Draft:Daniel Keem as well while we're here. MER-C 04:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Added to nom. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both and what gives with people so focused on a narrow reading of process they fight to protect spam. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both = Totally non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2017 (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.