Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ray McCort

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ray McCort


I moved draft content to my sandbox and will submit it from there. 1900toni (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have not given any reason for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did, thanks for notification. 1900toni (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that one editor has for some reason decided to create a second draft for an article rather than just improving the first one is not a good reason for deleting the history of another editor's draft. The original draft was not much good, but overwriting it with a new draft, copying the new one to a different page, and then using the existence of that new page as a reason for removing the original editor's draft is not a good way to proceed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The draft should not be deleted for attribution purpose. I also see something really fishy here. Honestly, this looks like paid editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What?? Go ahead delete both the pages, I have no personal interest. It looked notable so I wanted to make necessary changes and request for AfC. 1900toni (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the draft, delete the sandbox, advise 1900toni to read WP:MOVE and to avoid Copy-Pasting. It is about maintaining the integrity of the page history as the attribution record. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * keep. As noted, "I've created another draft in my own sandbox" is not a reason to delete the existing draft. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that this nomination is part of an extensive paid editing ring and has some similarities to the orangemoody fiasco in getting articles deleted and then probably bidding to clients to create a new version. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:36, 20 October 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.