Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Landlubber Jeans

 __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:  delete. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 17:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Landlubber Jeans

 * – (View MfD)

Has been declined four times and just submitted again with only trivial changes. It was most recently declined for copyvios, which were changed into close paraphrases by tweaking a few words here and there, with the edit comment, Fixed copy and paste problems by rewording most of the article. The sources are mostly passing mentions and routine coverage of business announcements. The one good reference is the Patterns article from the NY Times, but one is not enough. The tone of the article probably qualifies for WP:G11, which is not surprising given that the WP:SPA author stated, in a now-deleted version of their user page, that they were, part of Ad Excellence a full service advertising agency. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Didn't really need deleting because it hadn't yet been rejected. Concur with nominator that it probably is G11, and that anything that has to be scrubbed to avoid G12 probably has no real content.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , it looks like you rejected the article. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Leave as reject. If resubmitted without improvement afterwards, then delete. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral as per User:AngusWOOF. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this stupid pathetic draft forever.Catfurball (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Given the motives of the creator of this article, and their repeated failure to show notability, it should be deleted (otherwise it will reappear); enough time has already wasted on it and any AGF for this topic used up. Britishfinance (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2019 (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.