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.
Declined 7 times at AfC with various concerns over 14 months and pending submitted again. We should either accept this on the basis of discussion or delete it for so many submission. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a good chance of being kept at AfD, if nominated. Advise the author to move it to mainspace themselves. AfC is not good at handling these borderline cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the improvement with this submitter likely to be enough to get it to be ready for article space? Is this just an exercise of putting lipstick on a pig? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe this is a radical idea, coming from a reviewer who frequently favors deletion, but there are a class of submissions that appear to be probably notable, and the submitter keeps tweaking them, and they never really get to be satisfactory. Maybe the third or fourth reviewer should suggest that the submitter ask for assistance at the Teahouse or a WikiProject. If the subject appears to be notable but the draft isn't improving much, then the submitter doesn't get it and is missing some key point, typically that notability is based on what third parties have written, and it is time for outside looks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only AfD can *decide* notability. Everything else is a rebuttable presumption. MfD reviewers can talk about notability, and will probably be usually right, but their decision carries no weight. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, as long as we don't decide to promote it simply because it is notable. It is probably notable, but the current draft doesn't establish notability, and the current author is "stuck" and isn't likely to make it into a satisfactory article. An AFD would likely be unsatisfactory and result in tagging. Therefore:
Keep as per Robert McClenon. While being not notable is not a reason to delete a draft, probably being notable should incline one to keep, and agree that this is probably notable, although it seems that better sources are needed. The creator has now asked for assistance, as jmcgnh notes above, and perhaps will get some. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs13:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned that the creator seems to be sincerely trying to improve this to an acceptable standard, although perhaps not fully understanding how notability works here, but this could not properly be called tendentious editing, so the new WP:NMFD does not seem to apply as a reason for deletion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This MFD is now more than seven days old and waiting for closure. I would observe that the consensus appears to be to Keep, especially now that the submitter is asking for advice at the Teahouse. Maybe this draft will be accepted into mainspace. Maybe it won't yet. However, it would be ugly to delete this draft while the submitter is making a good-faith effort to get the draft into article shape. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There appeare to be limited support for the idea the topic is notable. The first keep vote is from someone who does not support the idea of deletion based on repeated declied submissions wilhich is the basis of this nom which is an ideological keep rather than a policy keep vote. I suggest relist rather than close to give the creator a chance to prove notability or not with assistence. Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems ripe for closure with no need to relist. It has gotten a fair amount of participation for an MfD. No one other than the nominator has said that it should be deleted. Two editors have explicitly said it should be kept in draft space. My view is certainly policy-based, for reasons that follow. The recent addition to WP:NMFD on which the nomination seems to be based, reads: A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy. While this draft has surely been resubmitted and declined quite a few times, neither the nominator nor anyone else has asserted that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace nor that it meets any of the reasons for deletion Note also that WP:ATD says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Also, WP:PRESERVE says As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. and Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. A general mantra of deletion policy is "When in doubt, don't delete." There seems some doubt here. Indeed even the nominator has not clearly asserted that this should be deleted, but rather that it should either be deleted or promoted to mainspace forthwith, if I understand the nom correctly. No one else seems to support that stark either-or choice. This falls within the technical limits of a SNOW keep, but a simple keep outcome would be reasonable. I see no good reason to relist, nor to delete. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator wrote: 'The first keep vote is from someone who does not support the idea of deletion based on repeated declied submissions wilhich is the basis of this nom which is an ideological keep rather than a policy keep vote.' No, no, no. That's just incorrect. That's the second keep vote, aside from the fact that they cited good policy arguments. The first keep vote is mine, and I often vote to Delete crud that has been repeatedly submitted and declined. This isn't crud, and I recommended that the submitter go to the Teahouse, and the submitter went to the Teahouse. I don't understand what the nominator's issue is, unless the nominator has an ideological reason to delete or promote or relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to position on the page, not date stamp. If this can be promoted that is fine. I've got nothing against the topic, I brought this because it has the most declines of any draft in the AfC system so it deserves a discussion. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It deserved a discussion. It has had a discussion. The discussion resulted in multiple editors !voting Keep. Why do you, User:Legacypac, think that it needs relisting? Because the discussion hasn't gone your way? I have no opinion at this time on whether it should be promoted. I have an opinion on whether it should be demoted (to the bit bucket); it should not. Why does it need relisting? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give the creator and anyone he can recruit a bit more time to prove notability before it is dealt with. I thought that was clear. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if this is kept in draftspace, as everyone who has expressed a view but you favors, the creator and anyone he can recruit will have far more than a week. 6 months or more. You still seem to think that the only alternatives are delete or promote. Others do not agree. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it is notable it belongs in mainspace for improvement. If not notable 14 months of effort is enough. All topics are notable or not notable even before someone writes the first word. If the creator feels it notable they should just move it to mainspace and stop wasting AfC time. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are a believer in meta:Immediatism, and have little patience for the early philosophy “there are no time limits”? I think the author should userfy it (where it may stay indefinitely) or mainspace it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a certain ideal platonic sense, any given topic is either notable or not notable before the first word of a draft or article is ever written. In practice, it takes time and effort to find and cite the sources needed to establish notability. (Leaving aside topics that become notable due to new events, such as a career taking off.) The logical consequence of Legacypac's view would be that we shouldn't have AfC or draft space at all, as notable topics should go directly into mainspace. Or at least that all drafts, whether being actively edited or not, should be either promoted or deleted after a short time. I don't think that either view has or is likely to gain consensus, and such a view seems to me to contradict Wikipedia:There is no deadline (an essay, but a widely supported one). In any case, I for one disagree. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs03:42, 24 June 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.