Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Evan Luthra

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [gab] || 03:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Evan Luthra

 * – (View MfD)

This title has already been deleted in article space. See Articles for deletion/Evan Luthra. Principal author has now been blocked, first for promotional editing, and then also for sockpuppetry. See Sockpuppet investigations/Fayssaloss. This draft does not qualify for G5 because it was originally created by the sockmaster before being blocked. But we still don't need it, and might as well not wait until March 2021. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The AfD issue was primarily notability, which of course does not apply here. The current draft does not appear to be promotional or at least not promotional enough to justify deletion. I rather suspect that a neutral editor could find sufficient sources to convert this to a valid article, should anyone work on this, although of course I cannot be sure of that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it is a well thought out nomination by Robert McClenon. I wonder if it would not be best to wait and see if others decide to edit the draft as DESiegel has suggested. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The facts stated in the nomination are accurate, I believe (as they usually are from ). Whether they lead to the conclusion that this draft should be deleted now is exactly the question to be discussed here. I have given my view above that they do not. Robert McClenon thinks otherwise. Do I understand that it is your view,, that this should not be deleted at this time to allow for a possible neutral editor? Or is that not what you are saying here? And what do you mean by ? Does that mean one where you think the reasoning is correct? Or one where some effort was taken to look into the existing facts and report them fully and accurately? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I give more weight to your position DESiegel. I acknowledge that my own opinion is not shared by the majority regarding sock and COI creations. I think if the subject is notable we should not worry about socks and we should wait for someone to work on the article. If not we have G13 in 2021. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes, User:Lightburst, User:DESiegel and I have a reasoned disagreement about drafts with histories of promotionalism and/or sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 21 September 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.