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 deleted G11, U5 by Anthony Appleyard. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lghtr27/Urban Betty Salon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks an awful like advertising to me - what level of coverage in RS would warrent a wikipedia article on a locally owned hairsalon? Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotion by an otherwise non-contributor. WP:CSD#U5 exists for such cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, Delete. Refer the author to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: No contributions outside of user space other than this draft on a topic that does not meet the general notability guideline. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• sandgemADDICT, the WP:GNG is not for measuring any drafts. A U5-ed page must measure way worse than GNG level, it must not be even plausibly intended to be a suitable article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything can be measured against GNG. If it fails GNG it should be deleted. This is not a draft someone is working on, its super stale, and should be tested against GNG so we can decide to keep and promote or delete and forget. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the better analysis is it's an abandoned draft with no direct indication that it's worthy for mainspace and no one has shown interest in seeing if it can be improved. It's no different than an AFD discussion where no one has provided sources but people just speculate that they could exist; that's not a great reason to keep and all you end up doing is having repeated discussions until such time at which point we kind of guess that insufficient sources are out there. Sure we could all speculate that this could be improved but with no one interested in doing it (the editor who created it having seemingly abandoned the project), at this moment, deletion seems like the most prudent option. If the editor returns or someone else shows interest, it can be restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my analysis above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 2 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.