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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Queensyze[edit]

Abandoned musician page no sources or claim to significance Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Abandoned" is not a reason to delete, nor is "no sources" or "no claim to significance" (a requirement for individuals in article space, not draft). VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if failing WP:V and [WP:N]] together is not a good reason... and no one working on improving beyond a sentence? Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:V (there's actually quite a bit of coverage online, it appears), which is a different case than being merely unsourced. WP:N explicitly does not apply to miscellany. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how is any of that not a reason to delete? It is a single sentence, created in a single edit by an IP and never touched since. There's no reason to just hang on to this stuff for eternity hoping that someone will come along and fluff it up on the off chance that this lady becomes notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would likely support a well-considered proposal that applied an automatic expiration to drafts, but no such process for draft expiration exists at this time. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your own RFC found we should not host unsuitable comtent indefinitely. It kind of backfired from the intended outcome. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: link? I really don't know what RfC you are talking about, though it sounds plausible (not the ABF accusation of starting an RfC with an "intended" outcome, of course) - that there should be some sort of draft expiration seems broadly accepted. We just don't have a criterion for what counts as stale or a CSD criterion written for low-overhead deletion yet. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete draft appears to have been abandoned for 9 months and is the sole contribution of that IP user, also per WP:OVERCOME. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither sources nor a claim to significence are requied in draft space, nor does 'stale" mean anything. There is no deadline. Unless a high-quality WP:BEFORE search has been done, no one can know if this is in fact notable, or could eventually make a valid article. Therefore WP:OVERCOME cannot apply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's one sentence and it's abandoned. Draft space is not a bottomless sinkhole of crap that might one day be not even useful if someone becomes famous. See WP:STALE especially point 6. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did do a pretty thorough search before I made my comment, and I found just one article in the Georgia Straight reviewing her latest EP. That's not even close to borderline. Maybe she'll get big one day, but she isn't now, and if we lose a single-sentence draft that tells us nothing about her as an artist and provides no sources, I feel like the hypothetical future article-writer isn't going to suffer too badly for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Community consensus says that "notability" is not part of the deletion criteria for Drafts. There is no deadline against which to consider a draft stale or expired, and the draft now has at least one piece of journalistic sigcov. Arguments that "maybe she'll be notable one day" are strong arguments for keeping it as a draft. Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXTBIGTHING Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.... which has the word article all over, making it mostly not relevant to this dicussion. Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are these Draft Oranges not Draft Articles? ::You misstate community consensus. Most people will support the idea that notability is not immediately applied to drafts to give them time to be developed, but it is applied eventually. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAWEBHOST for unsuitable material on unnotable topics. How soon we delete is a matter of judgement - a resume might be deleted right away even if the author is still editing it while a music bio might get 6 months after it is abandoned. We created WP:G13 to delete the ever growing pile of abandoned AfC drafts. Unfortunately, G13 does not apply to the (even more sorry) ever growing pile of abandoned non-AfC drafts so we use MfD for those, but the same principles apply. We delete abandoned stuff we can't promote unless there is a really strong case why it needs to be kept. Housekeeping is necessary. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2017 (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.