Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Edward Van Gils

 __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: speedy delete. obvious OTT spam Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Van Gils


Article is a duplicate of another article. IanDBeacon (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which article does this duplicate? — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an article that was deleted already back in March, which is Edward Van Gils. May be upgrading to Speedy Deletion instead.--IanDBeacon (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

An article deleted back in March. IanDBeacon (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was draftified in March for incubation by Discospinster. Deletion would be inappropriate; suggest withdrawal. This will be deleted per G13 in six months if it does not go anywhere anyhow. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking my !vote per SmokeyJoe below. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Duplicate of what article? I’m suspecting an inept nomination here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * speedier A7 in march. That’s not a reason for deletion in draftspace.  Without two pages existing in parallel “duplication” is not the word.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with User:SmokeyJoe. This is a sub-optimal nomination.  It seems that this page has been shuffled around, into and out of article space and draft space.  I can't find a deletion discussion.  A deletion discussion at MFD would be G4.  A deletion discussion at AFD would at least be an argument.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - This draft is in bad shape, but that is neither reason to keep it nor to delete it. The lack of a deletion reason is a reason to keep it.  Is there a deletion reason?  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Dutch street football legend who invented many ..." Big claims fail WP:V.   It is promotion of an upcoming athlete, and the first three sources contain mere mentions or not even a mention.  Speediable WP:CSD as promotion based on unsuitable sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the absence of a plausible nomination, User:SmokeyJoe has found a reason to delete, which is that the draft is unverifiable tall tales. Thank you.  It isn't G3 because it isn't an obvious hoax, but it might be an unobvious hoax.  In any case, unverifiable.  Therefore:
 * Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't see this article ever meeting notability requirements, so why delay the inevitable? GiantSnowman 10:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete when originally submitted it was a duplicate. Had the page been redirected correctly at the time it would be gone now. It is also a promotional mess. G11 material. Legacypac (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2018 (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.