Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Paul Devoe

 __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:  keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Devoe


An article got deleted discussion here and still focuses on the murders and no other reason, per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA Mjs1991 (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment for the benefit of all participants: WP:G4 does not apply as G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The current version is more developed with more references. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, not worthy of MfD. Existing AfC and WP:CSD#G13 processes should be allowed to play out, unless there is a real problem.
 * The page is obviously not G4-eligible. User:Mjs1991 should know better.  This is a recent draft with several 2018-19 sources, and the AfD was 2010.
 * The notability test for this topic is WP:CRIME. If a reviewer is certain that the page can never pass that threshold,  they should use the AFCH option of REJECT, which has not been done yet.  The author remains encouraged to edit and improve.  Given that the topic has been previously deleted, authors should know that approval is a tough test, and that they should take the advice at WP:THREE.  Please do not add more lower quality sources.
 * I don't know if there is much chance. There are a lot of news stories about his recent court challenge to his conviction, but I read them as primary sources, as they simply report facts factually, there is no secondary source content, no comment by any author.
 * If it is not suitable for Wikipedia, there is another website for this sort of thing. WP:Alternative outlets.  See https://murderpedia.org/male.D/d/devoe-paul-photos.htm
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep for at least three reasons, as well as the lack of a reason to delete the draft. This is a draft, and it has generally been held that G4 does not call for deletion of a draft from draft space because of the AFD of an article, even if the draft is substantially the same as the article.  A draft should be declined if it is substantially the same as a deleted article.  A draft is speedily deleted if it is substantially the same as a draft that was deleted at MFD.  There is no history of a previous MFD, only a previous AFD.  Second, this is a draft, and the author is entitled to keep and improve the draft to get it to qualify for acceptance as an article.  It might qualify for acceptance into article space with more improvement.  Third, after nine years, there might be (and evidently are) new sources that might warrant an article.  The nomination is a good-faith error of confusing AFD criteria and MFD criteria.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2019 (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.