Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Endrit z/Enis Zabërxha

 __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: No consensus to delete - blanked. — xaosflux  Talk 13:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Endrit z/Enis Zabërxha


Six year old userspace draft for a non-notable footballer. Mainspace version at Enis Zabërxha has already been deleted four times and was twice moved here. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * keep but Replace with Inactive userpage blanked as plausibly notable with none of the deletion log notes indicating a considered decision that the topic is judged not suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Four deletions and two failed userification is not enough to consider that the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Plausibly notable;
 * The WP:GNG does not apply to userspace;
 * None of the deletions were consensus decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes a unsourced BLP about an footballer who played for a team that has been defunct for three years plausibly notable? Userification can be reversed and the page deleted if there's no indication that the page is being improved and there's been no indication of improvement for six years and then to blank it with a template means that there's no suggestion that there will be no improvement for more than that. And three CSD deletions and a prod deletion are all evidence of a consensus that articles that fail those criteria can and have been deleted. Does literally every article have to go through a full AFD before deletion can occur? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources exist. eg. http://www.scoresway.com/?sport=soccer&page=player&id=329346
 * The text of the draft makes a strong assertion of notability.
 * Disagree that CSDs and Prods are evidence of consensus on the topic generally. They are reflections of the page deleted.  If you want to discuss that line further, please temp undelete.
 * Plausibly notable topics, if no WP:NOT issues, no BLP violations, yes, they should not be subject to deletion unless properly assessed at AfD. You may want to editorially replace the contents with Inactive userpage blanked, but bringing old unoffensive userspace and draftspace pages one by one to MfD is busywork, is a net negative contribution to the project, and is unwelcome.  MfD should not be used to delete harmless pages for which you are unable to articulate a deletion reason.  To do so, to humour you, would be to invite you do keep doing it more and more and more.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2016 (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.