Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Taylor Evans

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Taylor Evans


No RS found, little content, possible vanispamcruftisement/COI. Likely made by SPA. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should be more easily deleted than MfD.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This should have been left alone and allowed to die a natural death in a month. Agree with nominator's comments, but no need to drag this here when the calendar is already ticking.   Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete so we waited too long to bring this page to MfD but we were too quick with the next page? Just treat MfD as an advertised PROD. No one wants to keep it, let it be deleted in a week. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - I agree that we could treat MFD as a PROD-like process most of the time, and that if any neutral editor agrees to take on a draft, they are welcome to do so. (A few drafts are really so bad that one sponsor shouldn't be enough, but that isn't the issue here.)  However, I think that nominating anything that is five months old just creates work.  The other one can be discussed in its own discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See, I prefer drafts be deleted by discussion or by CSD aside from G13, so you can tell in the deletion summary why it was deleted, so people know it was nonviable content. A G13 summary leaves nothing about the quality of the draft. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you want to gravedance on the worst of old poor drafts that are about to be put out of their misery, and want to run the activity through mfd? This is definitely objectionable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My logic is that, if a reason for deletion is left, nobody will want to request, and clog up the refund process. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of REFUND clogs, and you are making work at MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Consider this: when an admin deletes a draft on G13, they explain in the summary why the draft in its state was not viable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear A7. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy - A7. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you, Kudpung and Davey2010 think A7 can be applied to a draft, can you please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks Joe, Adding my (probably unhelpful) 2c in. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:00, 15 April 2018 (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.