Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luke Cutforth

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: Kept - Moved to articlespace and renommed via AFD.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been moved back to draft with the AFD being closed, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Luke Cutforth

Abandoned draft, Repeatedly deleted at AFD and I believe deleted via CSD too,. –Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard one. Logs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Luke+Cutforth

Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth

and again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (2nd nomination)

User:JamesBWatson WP:SALTed the mainspace title.

User:Graeme Bartlett accepted a WP:REFUND request and draftified.

Sources have been added post-draftification, eg [1], weak evidence supporting notability, and pre-dating the AfDs. Lots of ghits, famous as a blogging youtuber. I can't see anything scholarly, but I have seen lesser sources carry something through AfD. Subject is mentioned in articles The Internet Takeover, Emma Blackery, and Michael Buckley (Internet celebrity). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe - Personally because of the various deletions I wasn't sure if moving this was a great idea ... Ofcourse I would be happy to preserve this and move it if preferred, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey. I find it hard to choose on this one. "Delete" because it was deleted at AfD, and it remains arguably substandard for mainspace? "Keep", as a draft, because there is scope for improvement to mainspace standards? I dislike the existence of draftspace and think Wikipedia is worse off for it. Why not blank it? If it were userspace, I would say to use {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could have just left this to become G13 eligible and deleted that way. It looks as if only Dtiz1 was interested in getting this up to scratch. This MFD is not really needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett - Except this would never have been CSD'd at all ... I mean I only came across this accidentally so this MFD is needed - Had I not come across it probably would've remained for the next 3 years like the rest that are nominated here, Dtiz1 made a grand total of 1 edit so I disagree - they wasn't interested at all, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.