Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Greg Chaney

 __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  already speedy deleted under G11 by User:DGG. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Greg Chaney


While the subject is most probably clearly notable, this submission to AFC is one of the most blatant WP:Vanispamcruftisements I have ever seen in almost nine years as a Wikipedian. Nothing less than the application of WP:TNT could cure the ailments that this draft is suffering from. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blow it up so that someone who is neutral can rewrite it. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Only the "accident" of its location saves it from Speedy U5 and G11 deletion if it was in Userspace. The obviously COI/SPA creator would also have been at risk of a WP:NOTHERE indef block. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - On the one hand, the subject is not "most probably notable". He is ipso facto notable under political notability guidelines.  On the other hand, it still needs blowing up and starting over.  The above editor says that the creator needs an indef block.  That has already been provided.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, Perhaps we should consider a "Campaigncruft" Speedy Deletion criterion, as a "balancing" flipside for NPOLITICIAN. Subjects that gain entry through a "generous" SNG should be just as easily evictable if the article is an abuse of the easy terms of admission. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * G11 is close enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that SNG is Special Notability Guideline, for state legislators (like this guy), Olympians, and generals. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, if you think G11 is applicable to this, let's just do it and stop wasting time with this process for the sake of process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dodger67 - Tagged for G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2016 (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.