Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thisisjames/James Stokell

 __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. — ξ xplicit  02:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thisisjames/James Stokell


Start of Jame's autobiography. We should remove this page named after a non-notable (in Wikipedia terms) person. Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked (Keep would also be fine) - This page is completely harmless (not promotional or anything) and drafts are not deleted for failing notability. It would have been better to not take up MfD and admin time with an MfD nom. A2soup (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Drafts should indeed be deleted for failing notability, provided that the subject isn't likely to become notable in the near future (as would happen in case of some articles meeting WP:TOOSOON). By doing this, we are at least preventing/discouraging the user from wasting time on something that's never going to become an article. In addition, given the creator's username and lack of other edits, a COI seems obvious. 103.6.159.90 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This page is being mirrored here and I imagine other places. Promotional drafts should be deleted because there's a massive incentive for the editor to reverse the blanking and then it's up to us to find it again. As the IP notes, there's a need to not encourage these kinds of drafts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is excellent reasons to blank this nonsense. It is not fine to leave in Wikipedia. No one is forcing A2soup or any other editor to spend time at MfD and the 'don't waste our time' story is getting quite old - please don't waste the time of editors actually cleaning up with demands not to waste time of editors who choose to analyze the janitors rather then grab a mop. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 27 February 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.