Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Robby Starbuck

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 03:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Robby Starbuck


Article was previously deleted via AfD. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. Cited coverage falls well short of what is expected to establish encyclopedic notability. See also Articles for deletion/Robby Starbuck. I am unsure why this has been restored. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Robby Starbuck. A contested deletion, the subject looks almost notable, but the decision was made.  Short term undelete for anyone who wants to challenge the deletion with the addition of new sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * keep This sort of situation ,where something is almost notable, is exactly the sort of situation for which we need draft space. jeep until someone improves it. ```` (That was User:DGG 08:12, 14 June 2016. I think you need a keyboard alignment:>  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC) )
 * Keep per DGG - this is what draft space is for. If it gets abandoned, it will be swept up by G13; if it is repeatedly submitted without significant improvement, it can be brought back here; but there is no reason to delete immediately. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree; this is not what AfC is for, nor is the subject "almost" notable. This is using AfC to get around the judgement of the community already rendered at AfD. The article had its chance and the community decided to delete it. All we have done here is to resurrect a deeply flawed article that the community said to delete and put it in this sort of limbo where it is extremely unlikely that it will be improved because the subject is clearly not notable. If someone wants to revive it, then they should write an article that is a substantive improved over the old one and that addresses/remedies the shortcomings found at the AfD discussion. To which end, I would have no objections to resurrecting the old article either here or in the mainspace. But AfC is not supposed to be a long term parking lot for articles found wanting at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but remove from AFC. An admin can restore a draft even if deleted at AFD per the concepts at Userfication (which probably needs a new name). As such, it's perfectly fine with an admin to restore it in draftspace. However, I am firmly of the believe that AFC should not be dealing with pages that were previously deleted via an AFD discussion. The actual mechanism hasn't been cleared up but I'd support either an admin move or RM or a DRV discussion, not simply another review via AFC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 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.