Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Robert Chandler Jr.

 __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:  soft delete as essentially WP:CSD. This draft can be restored by request at WP:REFUND. ✗ plicit  00:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Robert Chandler Jr.

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

The subject of the article is the late father of Christine Weston Chandler, who's a target of a mass and long-term harassment campaign, which makes this draft look like a stealth attempt to take part of the harassment. It helps that the original article referenced CWCiki, which serves as the base of the campaign, and misgendered and deadnamed Chandler. I originally nominated the draft for speedy deletion under criteria G10, but the nomation was rejected as the article isn't written to be hostile enough, so I'm nominating for deletion under normal procedures. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article had been left alone, it would have been deleted in 3 days as a CSD G13. It didn't need to have a week long discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore and strongly urge User:PrincessPandaWiki to not bring hints of innuendo to MfD where it is stuck in the public record. If G10 was declined, it was declined with good reason.  There is nothing in this draft demanding special attention, and the worst thing to do is to filter drafts from problems and then highlight them at MfD.  See WP:NDRAFT.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So I should WP:SPEEDYKEEP? Nominate this deletion nomination for deletion? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki  (talk | contribs) 15:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, now that it’s here, let it play out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No opposition to calling it a G13 deletion, as if it wasn’t touched. This means it is eligible for auto-RREFUND. Subject is plausibly notable but probably not wikipedia-notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as a draft that was almost allowed to expire except for a good-faith mistake by the nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Soft delete per Robert McClenon. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:32, 27 September 2021 (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.