Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luke Cutforth (2nd nomination)

 __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. Can be restored if required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Luke Cutforth


The page needs to be blanked due to inactivity. The subject is a famous youtube blogger, found non-notable when deleted at AfD. Post-deletion, it was userfied for improvement, but improvements were small and the interested editor then became inactive. Further research, or developments, could easily reveal the subject to be notable, but in the meantime the page is an unmaintained out-of-date presentation of a not quite notable BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * XfDs and draftification:
 * Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth. delete. User:The Bushranger 2 October 2011
 * Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (2nd nomination). Delete. User:JamesBWatson 3 November 2014
 * Draftified 15 May 2016‎ by User:Graeme Bartlett A WP:REFUND request by.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luke Cutforth. Moved to articlespace and renommed via AFD User:Davey2010 10 November 2016
 * Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (3rd nomination). Keep - Moved back to draft. User:Davey2010 10 November 2016


 * I appreciate User:Davey2010's frustration in trying to deal with this abandoned draft.
 * User:C.Fred disagreed with my attempts to boldly blank, so I am bringing it to MfD for discussion.
 * Blank, and leave blanked, until an editor arrives who is interested in updating it and can demonstrate Wikipedia-notability. There is nothing in the history that needs to be hidden from non-admins.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - At the moment I personally believe it should be deleted on the basis that it's already been deleted 3 times (the 4th time it was then undeleted), As no substantial sources have been found in the 2/3 times of it being recreated I personally don't see the point of leaving it here or blanking it, If an established editor wants to take it on (through refund) then great but blanking/keeping it only means more fan crap will be added and perhaps in the end it'll be deleted anyway, Also I just want to state for the record that me moving this and AFDing it wasn't abusing anything nor was I trying to be sneaky - It was just a case that I was trying to get a better discussion and more editors involved, Anyway moving on from that I personally don't see the point in keeping this however If anyone can perhaps find a good reason to keep then I'd be more than happy to change my mind, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that Davey has not been in any way abusing of process or sneaky. The process for dealing with abandoned draftified pages is not established.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it definitely lies somewhere between "delete but allow WP:REFUND on request" and "Blank, until an interested editor picks it up". I don't think it is normal that "fan crap" gets added to blanked articles.  Non-Wikipedians do not find the material in the history of a blanked page.  If it weren't for the page being out-of-date BLP, I would be happy for it to remain unblanked in draftspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 15 November 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.