Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Simran Sharma

 __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 no consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Simran Sharma


Fails WP:ACTOR way to soon for a draft even and this one is abandoned. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It fails a wikiproject? "Abandoned" is not a reason to delete a draft and neither is WP:TOOSOON so default to keep. VQuakr (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * the account that made three edits in Oct 2016 to create this page appears to have no intention of expanding it beyond two sentences. It's Abandoned. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So what's the rationale for the nomination? Lacking one, this qualifies as a speedy keep per criterion #1. VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (Courtesy ping as was not pinged in the above) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * VQuakr's first post makes no sense. Who menioned a Wikiproject? His second post also makes no sense for evidently the editor failed to read the nomination or the further explanation. VQuakr has a 42% alignment with consensus at MfD which does not give me confidence they are qualified to lecture anyone on what is or is not proper nomination rational or which guidelines we shoild consoder. If someone wants to make a stand to keep abandoned crap in draft space, could they at least pick a topic with some potential where someone has some intention to create a usable article at some point?  Legacypac (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * you cite the WikiProject WP:ACTOR in your nomination. VQuakr (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Never know that wikiproject existed. Correct link is WP:NACTOR. Sorry about that. Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NACTOR is a secondary notability guideline. WP:NMFD. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * your link to WP:NMFD ignores the substantial caveats in the underlying RfC amd ignores WP:STALE. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The underlying RfC was a 10-word query closed with two sentences. It is utterly devoid of "substantial caveats." WP:STALE, while nominally a guideline for user space, does provide some useful guidance. It recommends waiting for at least a year of inactivity (not the case here) and recommends nominating for deletion at MfD only if it would still be problematic if blanked. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2017 (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.