Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mark Rubel

 __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 to delete. — xaosflux  Talk 05:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Rubel

 * Time stamp for bot to properly relist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Time stamp for bot to properly relist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is silly unverifiable trivia here and no substantial claim of notability. Would never survive in article space. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Appears borderline non-notable, and contains excessive unsourced personal details. Why is this draft not processed like any other old draft?  I would not support deletion if it were in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe what do you consider processed like any other draft? AfC or what?  Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a completely screwie interpretation that a DraftSpace draft without the AfC template is not a draft. An obvious fix has been proposed by DGG at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, but the discussion derailed and stalled. Put the AfC template on it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Since it's not an AFC draft, there is no "process" for it and thus it would never be deleted without a discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like the ability to add AfC templates but if I put the AfC template on, I'll be dragged to the drama boards. The only correct process here seems to be MfD. Legacypac (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Any objection to me applying the AFC submission on behalf of the creating user and giving them the 6 months to try and bring this page up to mainspace eligibility and closing this MFD? Hasteur (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter to me. If you think it's actually workable, then I'll change to a keep. The AFC part is irrelevant. If it's not edited, it'll pop up at the bot's report again. That's why I've proposed a draft proposed deletion system, to have a system akin to AFC of reviewing these things rather than MFD discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. Has something changed? In January, you were chewing me out for adding AFC submissions for inactive users and now you're suggesting the same thing? I don't care either way but whatever. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Different cases and situations. In the cases you were blindly applying the AFC template without even considering if they even had a chance to try and get it burecratically stamped through by CSD.  I stand by my previous chiding you and the assertion made in the DRV you foolishly launched You seem to be intrested in burning down all Draft space articles regardless of the cost or harm to the encyclopedia.  I am being convinced that either your incompetence or willful disregard after being educated and instructed multiple times on these subjects can leave no other outcome but removal of your administrative privileges. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as there's nothing particularly suggesting to keep and improve and I also notice this has existed for years..... Unless someone wants to take care of it and improve.... SwisterTwister   talk  07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per SwisterTwister. Userspace or draftspace shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep stale stuff indefinitely. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as plausibly notable. There are no time limits.  Multiple recent RfCs have affirmed that there is no time limits on drafts, that "stale" is not a reason for deletion, and the above editors should stop ignoring the broader concensus.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 27 May 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.