Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Deshpi Debbarma

 __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. It would have been nice to have explained to them first what was going on before tagging for deletion. They are new and may not understand how this place works. I left a short note for them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Deshpi Debbarma

 * – (View MfD)

Non-notable and unsourced autobio. Adam9007 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced BLP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do nothing This is just a day old draft article. Wikipedia has thousands of these. It shouldn't invite a deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The content is inappropriate for a draft. It could be appropriate for a userpage, if the user were a contributor.  One week, the duration of this MfD, is an appropriate deadline for the author to provide a source for this draft of a probably promotional biography.  The intention here is not for these to be routing discussions, but to establish precedence for BLPPROD in draftspace.  Is there any good reason to not delete this?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that pages like these are being inappropriately speedied under G11 or even G2. I've seen pages (including drafts) that are less promotional than this speedied under G11; the only reason I can think of is that they were autobios, as this seems to be. I'm concerned that if I don't take pages like this to MfD, they'll just be speedied inappropriately. As for this being unsourced, although drafts are much less visible than articles, BLP policy applies everywhere, including draftspace. Adam9007 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing that is problematic, like negative BLP, vandalism, test, etc. It isn't even promotional. Steve M (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to User Page - The reason not to delete this in draft space is that deleting it from draft space is a form of biting the newbie. The bad faith assumption is that the user intends this to be an autobiography in article space.  The good faith assumption is that the editor doesn't yet know what a user page is.  I occasionally encounter these in draft space when they have been submitted, and I move them to user space rather than declining or rejecting them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a userpage, it would meet CSD#U5, so your suggestion is to make things worse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced BLPs shouldn’t be present anywhere but unfortunately some editors think differently. SK2242 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2021 (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.