Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Short Method Of Multiplication

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 noted in the discussion, userfication isn't a good option for pages created by IP editors, the page as it stands is definitely not suitable for anything, and even if improved it is not likely to be accepted as an article. RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Short Method Of Multiplication

Reads like a how-to guide, fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Barely coherent english. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 13:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as content not suitable for an encyclopedia, while it's not impossible for methods to have articles (e.g. Long division), this could not simply be adapted. I'd suggest amending a How-to on WikiHow. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It's a draft, and doesn't need deleting yet, but isn't helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to Weak Keep per Robert McClenon. The arguments above are sound, but there just isn't a compelling reason to delete here. I would be fine with userification without leaving a redirect. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of Multiplication algorithm. Draftspace is for new topics. It is not good for forking narrowly defined subtopics from existing coverage in mainspace. If this is worthy of coverage, add it to Multiplication algorithm. If not, it is not for drafting. If it needs to be spun out as it’s own article (unlikely), get consensus at Talk: Multiplication algorithm. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This won't become an article. Userfication would be ideal for a registered user, but doesn't really work for IP editors, as IPs recycle eventually, depending on the network settings sometimes in a matter of hours, deleting immediately would usually seem a tad WP:BITEy tending towards keep at least for a week or two, but the address was blocked for disruptive editing which pushes me the other way, while acknowledging that it might not have been the same person. So I'm content to leave it for now to potentially let a new user play with it as an editing exercise, but I don't see deletion as likely to be a big negative, in the long run it won't do any harm before G13 catches up with it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and argument by User:SmokeyJoe also makes sense. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with tendency to Decline as NOTHOWTO if it were submitted and Reject after three times with no improvement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 28 January 2020 (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.