Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (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. The sole keep !vote here was based upon a reviewing being conducted but as noted by Robert, it seems that MFD was conducted in lieu of a review, and on that basis, the consensus here support deleting this draft. An request to allow restoration can be made at Deletion Review but independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the individual will be required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green


This was first MfD'd in November of 2015, and kept, as new sources were being found. Since then sources have been fully investigated and the article still fails GNG, as per reviewers. The article has been brought to AfC ten times. It does not now appear that this will meet notability criteria. Recent additions to the article include some that do not mention the person at all. The editor is trying very hard to make the case, but I'm deeming it a lost cause. LaMona (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nominator, and as originator of first MFD. As noted by nominator, the author is trying very hard to make the case, but she has a conflict of interest.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A conflict of interest is not a critical failing, I am more concerned that the author has not other interest. WP:SPAs are rarely here for the good of the project when they write material on a subject with something to sell.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't delete my page. I have been working hard to edit the page and have worked with the comments given from other editors. I have asked in the Teahouse if anybody would be willing to help me write my article, so that it can be seen and altered through an unbiased party. I am taking more steps to improve my article. Please allow me to keep writing my article. Thank you. Aagreeny4 (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Prove your genuine interest by improving different but similar articles. It is much easier to improve existing articles than to write a new one.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep until the pending review (which will be the draft's 11th) has been completed, so that we have a view based on these revisions. I doubt that any more sources will be found, so if the submission is declined for notability concerns again, then delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Just had a question, why was it nominated for deletion before it was reviewed? Thank you Aagreeny4 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Probably because the nominator, who is one of the reviewers, didn't go through the formality of declining it, because she went through the formality of nominating it for deletion. User:Cordless Larry - Since the nomination was by a reviewer, maybe the review is complete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 8 March 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.