Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Omar Ismail

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Omar Ismail


So far off the mark I think approproate to delete this by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - This isn't ready for G11, but it is promotional and has other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It needs a firm rejection template. NSFW will do. Please don’t bring every supercrap unusual submission here, it does not deserve the extra exposure.  I think I should propose NSFW as a 7 day draftprod.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, I agree with User:SmokeyJoe that it is not necessary to bring every "supercrap" submission here. I will !vote to delete them, but they can be allowed to die a natural death.  Second, I have not been thinking of NSFW as a proposed deletion, only as a warning not to submit again, but I do not object to the repurposing.  User:Legacypac?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also seen the template as a message to not resubmit, not as a new method to trigger deletion. It's not intended to be the anti "promising draft" with special powers, it's one editor's opinion. I certainly don't bring very many rejections here, I just felt this one needed a stronger message. Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We are just on slightly different places on the same page. I think we more desperately need a draft deletion method for the extraordinary range of possible supercrap that comes in, without giving it forum exposure for SNOW deletion. I would prefer this page go to a quiet G13 deletion than the flare of an MfD discussion, but whatever way, it is not for mainspace and will be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A7/A9 Draft version should be pushed. You are very good at pushing though expanded CSDs. Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion has failed. A firm point of opposition is that G11 should be used.  I agree that G11 should not be used on drafts that appear to have reliable sources, drafts like this one. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Why can't you just leave it on with a box explaining whatever the perceived problem is and let the reader make their own mind up? DiegoDPaolo (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because this page is not encyclopedic and just promotes the unbelievable claims of the subject. Legacypac (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like parts of it are a hoax? ("his coronation day"?) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:32, 16 June 2018 (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.