Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shogo Kumasaka

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Shogo Kumasaka

 * – (View MfD)

Draft article with no hope of promotion to article space. Daily updates by an IP to the death dates of this biography (for example, , ) both preclude waiting out G13 and lead me to think this is a prank page possibly targeting a living person. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - This is a strange case with the tweaking of the dates, but deletion of the draft is an unnecessarily extreme remedy. A possibly unusual but less extreme way to deal with the tweaking is semi-protecting the draft against edits by unregistered editors.  Perhaps this isn't the forum to semi-protect a draft, but deleting a draft is an unnecessarily extreme measure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no benefit to the project in keeping this draft. There is potential harm in keeping the draft. Therefore, it should be deleted. VQuakr (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. At best, this is useless.  At worst, this is being used for some bizarre social engineering attack.  SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotion, possibly G11 eligible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem promotional in tone. Not all articles and drafts on non-notable subjects are created to promote them. Glades12 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tone can be fixed by editing. I weigh highly the ratio of promotion of external promotional links, like the subject’s website and Linked, to the amount of properly sourced content.  This one is irredeemable, the only question is whether it is blatantly irredeemable.  At best, it needs WP:TNT, there is nothing here than can be reused. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete this worthless draft forever.Catfurball (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I am persuaded by the other editors that, whatever this is, this doesn't appear to be a draft that is ever intended to go into mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2020 (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.