Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Matthew Dainey Carson

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Matthew Dainey Carson


Fails WP:ACTOR by a mile making this a NOTAWEBHOST situation Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * keep WP:ACTOR is a notability guideline, and so is not relevant to a draft. Or have you done a WP:BEFORE search and are contending that sources do not exist, online or off, that could ever establish notability here? No valid reason for deletion has been provided. As written this is non-notable, but there is no way to know what sources might be ut there unless someone has searched. In any case, current notability is not a requirement for a valid draft page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The page is self evidently not suitable or perhaps you did not read it? From his "loving parents" to winning a local radio sponsored Garth Brookes lookalike contest to the name of his cat. Oh he's looking for acting gigs too.  Good grief there is no indication the subject needs a page here. It's (most likely) self promo and a vanity page. If he makes the big time, none of this trivia will be useful anyway.  Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I read it, and it is surely not a valid article as it stands. And that doesn't matter. There is no policy basis for the many draft deletion nominations you are making. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's a pretty stingy reading of policy that allows all crap to be keep in wikipedia forever. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the policy, try to get consensus to change it. Previous RFCs have not developed such a consensus, as I understand it. I gather that the idea of an artificial fixed deadline was pretty soundly rejected. I would PERHAPS support a policy change such that if after a quite through WP:BEFORE-type search they conclusion was there there was no chance that a draft could ever be an article made from the draft then it would be deletable. But that consensus has not yet formed. Nor has any other which would support this deletion that I can see. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My views are well within policy, some inclusionists efforts to change policy not withstanding. See WP:STALE Point 6 for example The RfC they like to link is misleadingly closed and they.broadly interprete the results without the caveats expressed by many of the supporters. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious attempt at self-promotion and not a good-faith effort to draft an encyclopedia article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:55, 18 July 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.