Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:A-F-R-O

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:A-F-R-O

Does not meet GNG, despite multiple attempts likely will not meet the bar. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 6 submissions with no real improvement. Appears to be promotional. Would not be a strong case for deletion because the submissions have all been Declined rather than Rejected, except that the most recent submitter has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. That isn't in itself reason to delete, but does give more reason not to be tolerant of excessive submissions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not an obvious notability failure. Draft has not had the REJECT option applied. Premature MfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hopeless draft, and save future reviewers or AfD some time. Maybe even salt, given the socking and self-promotion going on. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be hopeless, but it is not desirable to bring hopeless pages to MfD for special discussion. If that were done to all hopeless drafts, MfD would be swamped. Therefore, the process is to apply the REJECT afch option. These processes exist for good reasons, please respect them.

Further, is it hopeless? There are many ghits. There are secondary sources. Reliability, reputability, and independence of the sources is dubious. I actually disagree with "hopeless", instead, it is difficult. I think this is exactly why the three reviewers in several reviews have not applied the REJECT option.

So what should be done? Well, MfD is not for examining the notability of drafts, a well attended RfC clarified that, linked somewhere from WP:NMFD. My suggestion, one yet to be formally adopted although it is actually standard practice, is that for any topic linked to promotion, as is this one, the onus should be on the proponent to satisfy WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original editor is the subject, who stopped editing on it last year. The only other major editor is that banned sock. Neither of them took seriously my suggested sources. That leaves no editor who is willing to make this a useful article. Very borderline WP:ENT; sure, he appeared on some talk shows, but this could be as generic as a person on the street interview. He has not charted or signed with a record label to easy qualify for WP:MUSICBIO. Sources left on the article are from bandcamp or discogs or other self-promotional places. G13 has outlived its usefulness. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 26 September 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.