Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:007paritosh/sandbox

 __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) 02:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:007paritosh/sandbox


Declined at AfC 5 times so far. Nominating here per the |3 strikes proposal for a definitive decision. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete  Vermont &#124; reply here  14:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: There is no "three strike rule" accepted by the community. There isn't even really a proposal. No formal RfC on this matter. The RfC that just closed, Village pump (proposals)/Archive 144, did not really support this. Doing this as a "tester" case instead of actually seeing if the community accepts this is putting the horse before the cart. Not saying that the draft doesn't deserve deletion but please do not use a rationale that isn't supported by the community. --Majora (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The discussion closed with the suggestion that we try this manually. There was a lot of support. I feel strongly that drafts with a lot of declines deserve wider discussion for promotion or deletion. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that was just 's suggestion. Not an actual part of the consensus reading. Although clarification would be nice. The line that makes me think this is It might help to propose without the automatic/bot aspect. Slakr is saying that you should propose something else. Formally. Not use this rationale to start opening deletion discussion since the rationale doesn't yet have community acceptance. Again, I'm not saying that the draft should stay. In fact, I'm going to put myself formally down as a delete. Just please don't use this rationale until it actually has community acceptance. If I'm wrong with how I'm reading Slakr's close I apologize. --Majora (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * slakr note &mdash; yeah; my close is more a suggestion for further discussion, not a prescription (the question was, after all, more about a bot listing these at MFD). That said, MfD is for whatever you reasonably think needs deleting that doesn't fall into the other xfds, and without it being codified, multiple declines&mdash;especially from more than one person&mdash;means multiple people already agree the content is likely deletion-worthy (else they'd just move it to mainspace for their "keep" vote), so opening an MfD can be one last check to make sure that those declining didn't simply make a mistake. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – Yes, this is a bad draft and doesn't appear to be making progress towards becoming acceptable. If it had been moved to draftspace, I'd probably be in favor of deletion. But it's a user sandbox and does not appear to particularly violate our policies about what may appear in a user sandbox. The multiple submissions and declines indicate a problem with the contributor, which deleting the draft would do little to address.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. esentially an advertisement, and should be deleted no matter where it is located . DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 23 February 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.