Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Operating Exposure
- 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 per G12 by DGG. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Second Review says "Portions of this draft are incomprehensible." Not a suitable draft at all. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep- Unsure what a draft requires to be "suitable". The last review mentioned only a need for heavy copyediting. I agree the need for copyediting is so severe that it would probably by TNTable as an article, but it's a draft, and a fresh one at that. Deleting something because it needs improvement is completely nonsensical in draftspace, since draftspace exists solely to improve currently "unsuitable" content. A2soup (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC) Striking now that copyvio has been brought to attention. A2soup (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- @A2soup: It's a copyright violation, and we don't "improve" those. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have struck my !vote - I assumed that an incomprehensible draft would not be a copyvio, thanks for your diligence in detecting it. A2soup (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I've got a 4 yr business degree and I can't figure out what the draft is talking about. It's word salad. Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's because it's an out-of-context copyright violation from here. I've tagged it as such. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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.