Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

 __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. I'm closing as Delete as not one person has put forth an argument to keep this page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G6, which I've rejected as I don't consider deletion routine maintenance—although garbled, it does appear to be a sincere attempt to nominate the page for deletion. However, as it stands the AfD has no chance of success since there's no deletion argument based on Wikipedia policy. Under normal circumstances I'd let the AfD run its course, but this nomination is so garbled and incoherent that leaving it in the record would potentially poison the well in the event of any future, policy-based nomination for deletion (as the AfD would inevitably be procedurally closed as "keep", leading to "well, it was kept last time" arguments). &#8209; Iridescent 04:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural delete as a disaster zone of a nomination. Dronebogus (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as badly flawed both substantively and procedurally. It is flawed substantively because it does not state a reason for deletion.  The nominator disputes the neutrality of much of the article and the accuracy and thus the verifiability of parts of the article, but there are other mechanisms for resolving factual and neutrality disputes.  The nominator also does not raise a marginal CSD argument.  It is flawed procedurally because it appears never to have been logged in the AFD log or tagged on the article.  Because it has no substantial basis and has never started 'working' through the process, it can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Thinking back on it, I think that it would have been appropriate to G6 it so long as I then told the editor how to create a proper AfD. Doug Weller  talk 09:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete User shows a bad understanding of certain parts of Wikipedia (For example, claiming that archiving sources is an attempt to keep biased information) and a clean start should be given to get the disaster out of the way. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  03:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - What a mess. That nomination is an affront to all that falls under the berth of WP:CIR.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural delete. Have the originator or another editor re-create it properly, perhaps with those AFD tools like TW, if they still want an AFD to happen. I don't even see the original author signing the statement so it is not clear who's advocating it without digging into the history. It can then not count towards "old afd full" since it's not an AFD that has gone through the process.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete due to how the AfD was never properly procedurally initiated. —  csc -1 01:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as a test. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 21 January 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.