Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mandya Gowda

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 . Killiondude (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mandya Gowda[edit]

The English part of this draft is partly about a person and partly about a political party or group. The non-English part appears to be a political statement of the sort that is not encyclopedic.

This draft will never be put into a form where it can be considered for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw your attention to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#For_promotional_drafts,_put_the_onus_on_the_author_to_supply_the_best_2_or_3_sources. This is highly analogous, although not clearly “for profit”. It is promotions without suitable sources. I suggest that it should be XfD-ed, not reviewed, certainly not reviewed in a way that results in the afc saccharine encouragement to edit improve and resubmit. My attention was drawn to the AfC workflow. Why does the AfC workflow not care about looking at the quality (GNG-meeting or not) of sources?

I would say that this draft should be deleted (not speedy deleted) on the basis of it being drafted without any suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative and subjective to argue “This draft will never be ...”, and over-confrontational. A better argument for deletion I think is “The current content is entirely based on unsuitable sources”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTAWEBHOST or G11 or just plain useless. Take your pick. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not English, NOTAWEBHOST, and not notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should've been speedied along with the English one. The user is blocked anyway. It can never be turned to anything meaningful. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2018 (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.