Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rico Dinero

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. JohnCD (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rico Dinero[edit]

~~The result of the discussion was keep. Although I disagree on this policy theories, they seem to be the new consensus at MFD. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ok, I'm pulling this out of the archives and re-listing this for further discussion based on the comments made here. The sole discussion was by a banned user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWEBHOST, and source searches are not providing any coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards (see below). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
~~Keep. WP:V and WP:GNG do not apply to drafts. 166.170.46.82 (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Banned user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the primary rationale for deletion provided is WP:NOTWEBHOST: "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" . North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~None of which matters. It's a draft on a potential article. WP:N is irrelevant. 166.171.120.241 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Banned user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear promotion of a non-notable musician. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made after original closure and reverted as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the subject itself is not notable improving the article is not an option. Since this draft will never meet our inclusion criteria it should be deleted. HighInBC 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and points by HighInBC and SmokeyJoe. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above - Promotional bollocks that has no use here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:47, 7 April 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.