Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese

 __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 13:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese


Previously deleted A7 as Freddie Neese by, then WP:REFUNDed by and then left untouched for over 7 years. I paid it the respect of being a draft & nominated it G13 as an abandoned draft which was rejected by as it wasn't tagged as an afc draft. Fair enough. So I tagged it, to which objected.

As an article it's a BLP violation. As a userspace draft, it's been abandoned for over 7 years already, and already rejected once from mainspace. Perhaps I should have gone for U5 in the first place, as a personal reminiscence hosted in userspace. Anyhow, having pinged everybody concerned, and fallen foul of sundry process ambiguities, we're at MfD for a verdict on the material rather than the process. Cabayi (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talkpage: "Per WP:STALE, unfinished draft articles userspace drafts may be moved to draft namespace ... if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing ... (the rule of thumb is to wait at least one year after both the editor who created the page and the editor whose space it is in, should they not be the same, have stopped editing). Hence, it is permissible to move User:Soopaphilb/Freddie Neese to Draft:Freddie Neese (which would make it eligible for G13 in six months). Conversely, there is no guideline justification for non-authors to apply the unsubmitted form of afc submission to userspace drafts." Why is the distinction important? Pages bearing afc submission have generally been submitted then declined (reviewed in some way) and pages in the draftspace have a higher level of visibility for at least six months. Furthermore, active editors rightly have the prerogative to retain userspace drafts not bearing afc submission indefinitely. I could list more reasons but I think that will suffice. Thus, applying afc submission to drafts within others' userspace is inappropriate. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 16 — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , as stated above, Cabayi (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete it is a recreation of material deleted A7. It is also U5 as nothing in the page can be used in any encyclopedia article. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I would have deleted it if I had seen the G13 tag but apparently G13 is supposed to be restricted to draftspace. (I would like to propose G13 be extended to user drafts but getting CSD criteria changed in even small ways is difficult. Cabayi, next time - move the page to draftspace and then apply G13!) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G13 only applies to userspace drafts when they have afc submission applied to them. That aside, moving the page to the draftspace would not have made it instantly eligible for speedy deletion - an additional six months with no activity would be required (else there would be no need to distinguish between userspace and draftspace drafts). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete User hasn't returned to do any improvement, unlikely to do so now after seven years. The Interior  (Talk) 15:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as U5 and for other reasons. Unfortunately, A7 is irrelevant.  I would like to see the A criteria applied to drafts, noting that the A criteria are not lack of notability but the lack of a credible claim of significance, a far weaker test.  This has no credible claim of significance.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not for being abandoned, but for its content. Neither notable nor sourced, cannot be published. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:56, 9 May 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.