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 as probable hoax. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aarondkeogh/Cassy Giacci (painter)

[edit]

Artist is not notable, hard to find info on her. Even her website is dead |http://www.cassandragiacci.com/ and this page is the only thing the editor ever did, way back in 2010. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Source searches are not qualifying an article; the subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked - I have no idea why people are debating the notability of drafts. Notability is completely irrelevant for drafts, and in fact defeats the purpose of drafts entirely - the reason they aren't in the mainspace is so that they will not be deleted for notability, verifiability, etc. concerns. A2soup (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there is no policy that backs up this position (unlike how there is policy about what we can put on our userpages about ourselves, which carves out an exception to GNG). Until such a policy is written we need to presume that existing policy applies across the project. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked. A2soup is right that drafts do not need to be notable. The Request for Comment about this issue on WP:N is showing a consensus that the general notability guidelines to not apply to drafts. Under WP:STALE, stale drafts should only be deleted if "problematic even if blanked," which is not true here.Fagles (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the point of WP:NOTWEBHOST if we don't delete a draft on a person who doesn't appear to be notable at this time, wasn't seemingly notable five years ago and there is a draft that hasn't been edited in five years? This simply enable more promotional SPAs editors to hang around. A five year old Tumblr interview isn't much to go on and even then if someone believes that there's something that could be created here, adopt the article yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no chance of ever becoming an article. No benefit in keeping it hagning around, very WEBHOSTy. Brustopher (talk) 14:09, 16 March 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.