Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jayden Armenson

 __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:  no consensus. Salvio 10:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jayden Armenson

 * – (View MfD)

hopeless personal promotionalism  DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, but should be AfC REJECTED before coming to MfD. It requires a notability analysis before deleting as promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Lightburst that it belongs, except to merely note that it is on a pathway to G13 deletion.
 * It seems to have been written with more than enough competence to make the page WP:CSD-proof. I strongly suspect  is either the subject, or a close affiliate, or very likely an undisclosed paid editor.  Whether I am mistaken or not, I urge them to introduce themself on their main userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably hopeless, I din't find anything useful in a web search. But I see no harm in allowing the user to attempt to write a valid article, and it is just barely possible that it might happen. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No such word as "promotionalism". What's hopeless is the fact that Wikipedia belongs to people who can pay non-trivial sums to get articles written about them. Should be mentioned in "notability analysis"? Thanks but no thanks for keeping. Nobody knows what "might happen" as nobody has seen the future, but getting a Wiki article published surely counts neither as an aspiration nor as an accomplishment.Sap2001a1007 (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any association with Jayden Armenson? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe it is where it belongs. The article will never make it past NPP so no harm in an editor trying to work on it. Lightburst (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , pervasive promotionalism  is just as good aground for rrejection as notability ; even better, for it directly violates NOTADVERTISING, a fundamental policy. We ca nand should renove adsimmediately without regard to whether the subject of thead is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * DGG, I believe I said it needs rejection. Rejection is an AfC function.  Activity post-rejection is reason to bring to MfD, I think.  Don't you?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not disagree, but I reject for promotionalism also, tho it means modifying the template before placing it. The difference with afd is that the standards for rejecting or G11 atAfC are deliberately much looser to allow for the possibility of improvement. I use MfD when it doesnt quite fall under G11, but is stronger than letting it sit for 6 months. The various ways of deleting material are not mutually exclusive with sharp borderlines. In any one match, I do some every way.    DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you rejecting for promotionalism. Declining implies a fixable problem. I don’t oppose deletion of this, but think it should generally be left rejected to see if the author gets the message. If they don’t, then I definitely support deletion by MFD, assuming nothing unexpected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 29 August 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.