Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell

 __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, noting that the RfC is providing clear confirmation that this, not AfD, is the appropriate forum for proposing deletion of drafts or user pages. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell


Stale draft by a WP:SPA that was deleted by AfD Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell before being pointlessly restored at the request of an editor who has no plans to do anything with it [.  The reason cited for restoration  (that [[WP:STALEDRAFT]] says "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace" is being read as an exclusive option - but no where is there a rule that says you can't move something to mainspace to AfD it.  Given the massive number of existing unsuitable articles in mainspace (see WP:AfD on any given day), having a potentially unsuitable page in mainspace for a week during a discussion about the page is hardly going to break the project.

Given that some editors refuse to consider WP:V or WP:N at all in MfD, an AfD may well be the best forum for discussing pages that are not a clear CSD.

This page remains unsuitable for the project and no one has raised any information to the contrary, so delete it again. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per my rationales at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Posts with no rational or comment on the page. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotion of a non-notable musician. That is a sufficient reason, and none of the other fluff is relevant.  Advice legacypac to concentrate on concise and accurate nominations.  Extraneous information such as "2009 stale draft from a single purpose account. This person appears to fail " only weakens the deletion rationale.  Be a sniper, don't scatter buckshot hoping one will hit.  Don't question notability, as nominator you should have a clear position on it being met or not met.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, abandoned for over 6 years by the creator who has no mainspace edits. Free webhost concerns. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 8 April 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.