Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jarrod Alonge

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jarrod Alonge


Not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58. Consequently, Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N may not apply in draftspace, but that doesn't mean this deserves to be kept. Jarrod Alonge (in mainspace) was speedied as a BLP about a non-notable person, and this draft has been declined multiple times for the same reason. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm odd, but I think that when deleting other people's contributions, you should state explicitly the real reasons, and get the facts right. WP:N is not alone a reason, although a clean WP:N failure on top of other problems makes the decision easier.  Your statement on the reason for the mainspace speedy doesn't match the log.  If you are careless with such easily checked details, should we suspect that you are broadly careless, and thus should not trust anything you say at face value?  It's not that I want to keep this page.  It looks "promotional & non-notable".  You might have mentioned "repeatedly resubmitted without responding to reviewer criticism".  What I would like to review is reliable trustworthy nominations.
 * But on the other hand, this person "Jarrod Alonge" is mentioned in multiple mainspace articles. The draft easily passes WP:CSD. the criterion cited when it was speedy deleted.  Again, I wonder whether AfC reviewers are overconservative?  What fraction of approved drafts of yours are deleted at AfD?  If the answer is 0%, you are definitely too restrictive.  I think reviewers do hold to a higher standard than AfD, and therefore I recommend that new contributors consider ignoring AfC and putting their work directly into mainspace.  I also recommend that they first improve existing articles, whcih can include creating new incoming links for their new article.  To enforce this, I support WP:ACTRIAL.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is not a reason for deletion of a draft. I am concerned about this editor's understanding of deletion policy.  After nominating this draft for MFD, the nominator then tagged it for speedy deletion using a custom rationale that does not fit any applicable speedy deletion critria, and then tried to amend the speedy with A7 which only applies in article space. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 22 October 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.