- 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: keep. ✗plicit 14:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Mount Vernon Plaza
[edit]- Draft:Mount Vernon Plaza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Strip mall that does not assert notability. Given the user's activities in other matters, it's very unlikely this will ever be finished or moved to mainspace. GSK (talk • edits) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Maps is only reliable as a source when used for location data, not for establishing notability. WP:GOOGLEMAPS. GSK (talk • edits) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not sure I actually see a reason to preemptively delete this instead of just waiting for it to be WP:G13'd if no one picks it up. Drafts don't need to assert notability. Almost surely not notable but that isn't a reason to delete a draft and has some (largely routine) coverage, like one example in the Washington Post [1]). Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1—a rationale to delete a draft is absent. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete a draft (see WP:NMFD), and perceived low likelihood of the draft being finished is also not a reason.—Alalch E. 17:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as G13 after six months, as usual. This MFD nomination wasn't needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now per WP:NMFD. Drafts are not deleted purely for notability reasons, or based on estimating their prospects of making it to mainspace; for drafts, that gets taken care of by G13. I'm sure at some point some user will end up being disruptive enough in draft space that after being blocked, cleanup will need to entail nuking drafts they created as a special measure. But a harmless though likely superfluous draft created by a later CIR-blocked editor doesn't warrant overriding general practice. Martinp (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User who wrote this was blocked indefinitely at 15:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons. The lack of notability is the result of not having references, and a good-standing editor can add the references and expand the article to incorporate what the references say. That is, I disagree with any statement that the mall is inherently non-notable; the author hasn't provided the notability. Originator was blocked for disruptive editing, but this draft is not disruptive.
- Comment - Nomination appears to be an overreaction by nominator. Nominator's report at WP:ANI results in block of originator. It isn't necessary to delete the possibly useful work done by blocked originator.
- Comment - Nominator has restarted calendar on draft. Good-standing editors now have until August 2024, rather than June 2023, to edit draft to prevent G13. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep textbook WP:NMFD and WP:NDRAFT. No reason to delete from draftspace, reasons given are for putting it in draftspace. WP:MFD is not for curating notability of drafts. Leave it for WP:AfC standard processes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons, as suggested above. Bduke (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2024 (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.