Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Polycarpa aurata/Letha Weapons

 __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:  speedy delete under CSD G5, after moving the first deletion nomination edit back to the main namespace where it should have been. Graham 87 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Polycarpa aurata/Letha Weapons

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is a complicated story. The article Letha Weapons was deleted via AFD at Articles for deletion/Letha Weapons. Then it was recreated soon after by Polycarpa aurata. I deleted it as a CSD G4 but it was restored to User space after a Deletion Review. It was then moved to main space where it was again quickly nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Letha Weapons (2nd nomination). In a highly unusual move, the page creator closed the AFD themselves and moved the article back to their User space.

For some reason, GoldenAgeFan1 is listed in the page history as the page creator but they actually nominated this article for deletion in the first AFD. I'm not sure why it's not Polycarpa aurata because they actually wrote this draft. The page history of this page is kind of mixed up with Letha Weapons's as GoldenAgeFan1's AFD shows up in this User space version, not the deleted main space version and the article has been deleted, restored, recreated and moved several times.

The reason why I even nominated this page for MFD consideration though is that Polycarpa aurata was identified as a sockpuppet of World's Lamest Critic. But I don't think this page is eligible for CSD G5 because, technically, GoldenAgeFan1 is listed at the page creator even though they sought to have a previous version of this article deleted. I was going to try to sort this out with GoldenAgeFan1 but they are an inactive editor so I decided to just send this to MFD as is and see what the MFD regulars think. Thank you, in advance, for reviewing this long nomination statement taking the time to review it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I still check Wikipedia, just haven't been very motivated to edit much lately. You're right that I was not the page creator, odd that it shows that. I did nominate the article for deletion because I believed it didn't meet any notability guidelines. I still don't believe it does after Polycarpa aurata's work on it (and since they've been blocked, they obviously aren't going to try to improve it any further). I support it being deleted if that is the consensus of other users. If there's some technicality that prevents it being deleted via this method, I'd also support another AFD or other suitable discussion on what to do with it. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete G13 among other things. Going with extreme AGF for what the editor said at the 2nd AfD, the page is a mangled undelete to userspace of the article deleted at 1st AfD one month prior. However, the page is an abandoned draft. The editor fought to keep the page to user space but did absolutely nothing further with it in 6$1/2$ months. Block evasion aside, the changes the editor attempted to publish didn't fix the fundamental lack of notability. Further improvement is now even more unlikely. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the mess of the history, per nom. If anyone wants to start again, let them have the reference list. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2022 (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.