Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The promo codes 2017
- 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: speedy Delete . Closing since Deleting admin forgot. SDed per G13. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 16:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Not at all an article, possible spam/promotion. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - If this had been submitted, it would be tagged for G13. Author is a single-purpose account. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Demand that Jjjjjjdddddd stop dredging up G13 eligible or soon eligible and making weak busywork mfd discussions. It is WP:Disruption. The nominator “possible” equivocation demonstrates immediately that it is an ill-considered nomination, the nominator needs to be sure. Mfd is not for hypothetical discussions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with G13 is that it is indiscriminate. It leaves no reason for deletion in the summary beyond being a six months' abandoned draft. MfD is supposed to act as a supervised PROD, more or less. I do see why this would be a weak nom though. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- The beauty of G13 is that it is indiscriminate. There are tens of thousands of abandoned drafts, and there is too little benefit from sorting the no good from the really no good. MfD is not a supervised PROD, why don’t you ease up nominating and just participate for a bit? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I get that a lot of G13 eligible drafts aren't going anywhere, but six months is arbitrary. If the words "and shows little potential to become an article" were added to G13, it would be fixed. But I may have been heavy-handed with MfD nominations.
- Jjjjjjdddddd I don't know where you got the idea that
MfD is supposed to act as a supervised PROD, more or less.
. It is nothing of the sort. Soem people have suggested that is should be, or that a new process for drafts should act in something like that way, but no such thing has gotten consensus at this time. MfD is supposed to be much like AfD, but applying the different standards proper to the non-article namespaces. It has often been fairly quiet, because not many non-article pages were nominated for deletion. Recently this has changed. The G13 process includes an early warning to the initial creator, and to anyone who might be interested. It also guarantees a restore on request. These are safeguards against unwise deletion whyen no individual assessment is done. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Jjjjjjdddddd I don't know where you got the idea that
- I get that a lot of G13 eligible drafts aren't going anywhere, but six months is arbitrary. If the words "and shows little potential to become an article" were added to G13, it would be fixed. But I may have been heavy-handed with MfD nominations.
- The beauty of G13 is that it is indiscriminate. There are tens of thousands of abandoned drafts, and there is too little benefit from sorting the no good from the really no good. MfD is not a supervised PROD, why don’t you ease up nominating and just participate for a bit? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with G13 is that it is indiscriminate. It leaves no reason for deletion in the summary beyond being a six months' abandoned draft. MfD is supposed to act as a supervised PROD, more or less. I do see why this would be a weak nom though. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Close If I saw this tagged for G11, I would decline, even in article space. It is hard to imagine this becoming a valid article, but I see little point to this MfD nomination. I agree with SmokeyJoe here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I mis read the previous comments, no one suggested this was a G11 promotional speedy DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. It may not have been G13 eligible yesterday but it is today. This is also incoherent text to support SEO link spam. A failure to accept G11's on such pages on a regular basis would bring into question an Admin's suitablity for holding tool. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since no one ever tagged it for G11 the point is hypothetical, but just what do you think this is or was promoting to justify a G11? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I tried it yesterday but it was only 179 days... Bobherry Talk Edits 15:18, 15 April 2018 (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.