Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sameerbhosle9/sandbox

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. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 06:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sameerbhosle9/sandbox[edit]

Two drafts of Shweta Rohira are in draft space. Because Shweta Rohira is salted, these drafts will never be accepted. Pending at WP:COIN. Probable WP:PAID and likely WP:SOCK, but those are separate forums rather than reasons to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason to escalate to MfD. The sandbox is properly REJECTED. The duplicate draft should be speedy redirected to the REJECTED page. The salting of the mainspace title means no such thing, erroneous logic. Probable PAID or SOCK are not deletion reasons. Either the author will challenge the REJECT decision, or they will give up. In the first case, evidence should not be deleted. In the second, the G13 process deals with this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is plausibly notable. The drafts include reasonable references. The arch REJECT was unjustified. The content forking should be fixed by redirection. This stuff up is as much a fault of the AfC poor design and systematic biting of newcomers. Advise the author of WP:DUD.

The author’s talk page contains some heavy allegations of WP:UPE, which the author denies. Note that Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_48#Undeclared_Paid_Editor_(UPE)_product establishes that paid editing is not, per se, a reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. No need to keep rejected stuff that will never become an article around forever. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Since it's never going to become an article, what's the point of keeping it forever? There isn't. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2019 (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.