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 . Deleting as G6 without prejudice to another restoration. It was undeleted at Taku's request in order to check the content, Taku is now requesting deletion as he believes the content is not worth preserving, and no one is arguing for keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ravi Naimpally[edit]

The subject seems essentially nobody, not a class of people Wikipedia covers. -- Taku (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:NMFD. Anachronist must have seen something promising in the draft because they recently saved it from G13. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again this was undeleted upon my request and so the removal of G13 does not carry a significance. I didn't mention this, in part because G13 should be irrelevant to the potential suitability of a draft in mainspace (in part to avoid a trouble with the topic ban). If some editor wishes to speedy close this for deletion, I'm fine with it. -- Taku (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G13 is commonly declined (and should be) if a draft is deemed potentially suitable for the mainspace. That off-topicness aside, I suppose I should start checking the logs because at face value it appears as if the tag was merely removed (though I suppose "saved it" is ambiguous enough that it could allude to restoration). Perhaps Graeme Bartlett can redelete this as well. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: Let me put in this way: I think you are treating G13 as if it is a proposed deletion. It's not: for example, I have seen drafts get deleted 20 min after the G13 tag was put. (So one must restore the deleted drafts to review the deletion.) -- Taku (talk)

@TakuyaMurata: I merely mean that it can be removed (if caught before the deletion occurs) to give the draft another 6 months unlike other criteria where removal does not effect the eligibility (e.g. a hoax is still a hoax and a copyright infringement is still a copyright infringement; other criteria are not time based like this one); I have seen administrators do it and I have done it personally. Warmest regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I restored the article by request at WP:REFUND, and saw nothing to indicate that restoring the draft was controversial. Removing the G13 tag is standard practice after such restoration, to restart the G13 clock for another six months. I made no judgments about how "promising" the draft might be. Such judgments are not needed for G13-deleted pages. It's no different than the creator removing the tag before it's deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: I realized that after my initial comment. Best regards, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case where it was just a temporary restore just so that an editor can see the content, it should be uncontroversially deletable with a G6 with no prejudice to other undelete requests. We don't really need to MFD it to death so that the original writer cannot develop it further. I agree that the topic does not look promising, but I did not check for sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2018 (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.