- 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: keep. Salvio giuliano 22:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
First let me declare that I have no interest in the fate of this draft. This is a procedural and a neutral nomination based upon the apparent desire of the main, but not sole, contributing editor to have it deleted. The history shows that they added a PROD (inappropriate for Draft space) and blanked the page. I reverted this on the simple basis that they are neither the sole contributor, nor are they the creating editor, unless there is use of multiple accounts, something I do not allege. I recognise that Drafts are rarely deleted at MfD, and will not argue for deletion, nor for retention. I have reviewed it and declined it some time ago, and shall not review it again. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - No reason presented for deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon The sole rationale is that the major contributor blanked the page and expressed a desire for deletion by the addition of a PROD. I apologise for not clarifying that properly in the nomination. I am carefully making no comment on, nor argument for, deletion vs retention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I will restate but clarify my original statement. No policy-based reason was presented for deletion. A desire for deletion was stated, which is not the same as a policy-based reason. This is a good-quality draft that is a biography of a dead person (who fell, both literally and figuratively, in the service of his country). Notability is not considered in deciding whether drafts should be deleted. None of the usual reasons for the deletion of drafts, such as tendentious resubmission, have been stated. No apology is required by the procedural nominator. No reason was presented for deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. If you're making a procedural nomination on someone else's behalf you need to accurately transmit that person's sincerely held view that the page should be deleted, that at least intelligibly connects with a reason to delete. It makes no sense to start an MfD because someone apparently has a "desire", but we can't decipher what the underlying reason is and whether it's policy-relevant at all. — Alalch E. 12:45, 30 March 2023 (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.
- 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: keep. Salvio giuliano 22:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
First let me declare that I have no interest in the fate of this draft. This is a procedural and a neutral nomination based upon the apparent desire of the main, but not sole, contributing editor to have it deleted. The history shows that they added a PROD (inappropriate for Draft space) and blanked the page. I reverted this on the simple basis that they are neither the sole contributor, nor are they the creating editor, unless there is use of multiple accounts, something I do not allege. I recognise that Drafts are rarely deleted at MfD, and will not argue for deletion, nor for retention. I have reviewed it and declined it some time ago, and shall not review it again. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - No reason presented for deletion.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ Robert McClenon The sole rationale is that the major contributor blanked the page and expressed a desire for deletion by the addition of a PROD. I apologise for not clarifying that properly in the nomination. I am carefully making no comment on, nor argument for, deletion vs retention. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I will restate but clarify my original statement. No policy-based reason was presented for deletion. A desire for deletion was stated, which is not the same as a policy-based reason. This is a good-quality draft that is a biography of a dead person (who fell, both literally and figuratively, in the service of his country). Notability is not considered in deciding whether drafts should be deleted. None of the usual reasons for the deletion of drafts, such as tendentious resubmission, have been stated. No apology is required by the procedural nominator. No reason was presented for deletion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. If you're making a procedural nomination on someone else's behalf you need to accurately transmit that person's sincerely held view that the page should be deleted, that at least intelligibly connects with a reason to delete. It makes no sense to start an MfD because someone apparently has a "desire", but we can't decipher what the underlying reason is and whether it's policy-relevant at all. — Alalch E. 12:45, 30 March 2023 (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.