Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Liao Xiangzhong

 __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. No consensus to delete, draft not stale. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Liao Xiangzhong


When the draft has not yet been submitted for review, the same content is repeatedly established.The creator only edits this topic and deletes the template "AFC submission" O1lI0 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't really understand the nomination but I think it is saying the draft has not been submitted for review and the creator is working on the draft (and only on this draft). This seems correct to me and does not lead me into seeing a rationale for deletion. Sure the template was removed but this seems unimportant because the draft was not in the course of submission anyway. What "repeatedly established" is about I don't know but the draft is actively being developed and there has been no edit warring. Thincat (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See 1 ,2, 3 .--O1lI0 (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had seen all that but I didn't think it relevant. Sure as an article it was being created multiple times but it looks to me more though lack of understanding rather than trying to be abusive. Anyway, the right thing is now happening with the thing being developed as a draft in draft space. Right? Why as a draft should it be deleted? Thincat (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor tried to publish the man and only had this goal.You said that the page has been developed.In fact, he wanted to avoid reviewing and publishing the contents, but found that it did not work.He does not want to "submit your draft for review", so repeatedly build the same content. Passively update the draft just because he found that can not avoid the review. His last effort is to remove the template trying to avoid review.
 * The reason for the deletion was that he was not actively submitting, but tried to avoid the review, and I thought he would not be actively submitted in the future.--O1lI0 (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, stale draft after three hours? Thincat (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, He only deleted the template and added the ad URL.This is not a positive editor. I observed him for a long time, he did not intend to improve the draft until the page was deleted, the last time the page and draft are updated at the same time. The other question is that he has never tried to ask what the problem is.--O1lI0 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (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.