Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RickZamo/new article name here

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 03:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:RickZamo/new article name here


Stale draft in Spanish from 2012. No one working on this so delete it. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete although not for the reasons offered. Stale is not a reason to delete. It is not a draft. Age is not a reason. No one working on it is not a reason. Easily translated, it is a text dump of opinion/commentary on a tax proposal not at all like an encyclopaedic article on a notable topic, and the users only edits, speedy per U5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Stale may not be a reason to delete, but stale and not in English is reason enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There can be reason to have project-supporting material not in English. You have to translate to see that it is not in support of the project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeping junk because an editor does not like the facts it is not in English, stale and no one is working on it is not right. Any yes U Google translated it and it did not look useful for an article without a lot of work. Legacypac (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * " and it did not look useful for an article without a lot of work" Wrong.  No matter how much work to bring it up to scratch for mainspace, if work can bring it up to scratch for mainspace, it should be kept.  This material, this page, should be deleted being the content is entirely unsuitable, it is a NOTWEBHOST violation, not a draft.  The user should be referred to Alternative outlets.
 * Your criteria for nominating for deletion and supporting deletion are very poor, very hit and miss. They do not always lead to the wrong result, as here, but they are still poor criteria.  If you are to seek deletion for everything that meets your stated rationale, a log of worthwhile material would be deleted.  That is not OK, even if it does catch a lot of cruft.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 11 March 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.