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: No consensus. RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel Mark Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page overcomes the objections at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Mark_Harrison but the creator keeps submitting it. Given the delete decision several years ago, an accept on this page needs a discussion. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - here's what I see: two years after an article was deleted, a user creates a new version. It's declined. User then makes a bunch more edits to improve it and adds a new afc tag. Then before the second afc review comes in, you nominate it for deletion. How is submitting a second time after making improvements "keeps submitting it"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:Legacypac is doing something that they sometimes do that is annoying, which is nominating a draft because it "needs a discussion". Is the discussion about whether to delete, and is LP advocating deletion? This is still WP:Miscellany for deletion, not Miscellany for discussion or Drafts for discussion. LP's real argument appears to be stated in the first sentence, that this does not overcome the objections at the AFD, and that is a valid argument, and can even be G4. However, in my view, it attempts to overcome the objection well enough so that another attempt to overcome the objections is in order. Therefore:
• Weak Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it overcomes the AfD issues so I nominated for deletion. Others may have a different view. This is not a slam dunk case. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the AFC can be rejected if it didn't satisfy the conditions that got it AFD'ed. Doesn't need to be deleted unless there is tendentious editing at the failing level with no chance of improving it to the level to override the AFD as with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:On This Holiday AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: promotional 'cruft on a nn entrepreneur. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 20 November 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.