Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Donald Cheney

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: speedily deleted by Ponyo per criterion G5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Donald Cheney

Draft biography over 6 months old, zero refs, two copyvio images. JFHJr (㊟) 21:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JFHJr I'm working on it, Please don't delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.138.163.231 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since drafting, you've submitted it 5 times for review and failed to improve it. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Draft is still being actively worked on, was only declined a few days ago, and has also had edits since then; WP:G13 only applies to drafts that have not had a human edit in 6 months (WP:IP editors are human too). Additionally, containing copyvio images is not a valid reason for early deletion of a draft. Curbon7 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Speedied. Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination did not include speedy criteria because it is not being speedied. G13 is a straw man. The draft is 6 months old, and is an unreffed biography for that time. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of bringing up the age if not discussing G13 then? Curbon7 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG will never be met. A decedent is unlikely to generate coverage lacking several years after death. JFHJr (㊟) 00:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the IP appears to be socking at Commons. It submitted the same image but bigger (more copyvio). Then it inserted it on the page as an IP. Yes, a human is doing this. JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being 6 months old has no bearing on whether drafts are kept or not, the draft can be years old as long as there is work being done on it, it can stay. WP:NODEADLINE applies to this rationale. The images have no bearing on the draft and are for a discussion or nomination on Commons. Unless the author is continually submitting without improving it then just leave it alone. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcmatter and Curbon7: See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Don't let the different IPs bother you. This is a dedicated nobody to a nobody. JFHJr (㊟) 01:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JFHJr Leave it alone, You had no good reason to file for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.138.163.231 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close as Sppedily Deleted as G5. Being six months old was not, in my opinion, a reason to delete, but being the work of a block-evading IP is a reason for a CU (who knows what blocked user they are) to delete speedily. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The draft was created and maintained by an abusive LTA sock. I've deleted under WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 13 September 2023 (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.