Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rajeswari Paled Tress

 __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. First, every version contains the copyrighted text so there's an automatic reason to delete. Second, there's a slight consensus to keep the draft, but Rich's keep vote is based on an implication that there exists a non-copyrighted version which there isn't but that doesn't overrule the concerns over the copyrighted text. I am willing to provide a list of the sources here (not a copyright issue) if someone expresses an interest in recreating this without a copyright violation. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rajeswari Paled Tress


Autobiography of a non-notable person. They are never going to be notable enough for an article, and so repeated submissions of this draft is just wasting other people's time Joseph2302 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. You can't know that unless you have done an extensive search online and offline, well above the WP:BEFORE standard. And no one can know the future. That would be a valid reason to delete an article, but IMO, not a draft DES (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this were an article, it would be a very clear delete. But it's a draft, and there's a chance (very remote, in my view) that someone will be able to find and add sufficient evidence of notability. They should be given a chance to try, but discouraged from making repeated attempts to submit it while making no attempt to establish notabilty. Maproom (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now but remove the copyvio of . All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete because the author has already been told to stop resubmitting it without sources, and has continued to resubmit it without sources tendentiously. The alternative would be to block the author for disruptive editing, and deleting the draft is a less drastic remedy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Waste of time. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 28 February 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.