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. Drafts can be deleted at MfD if they are tendentiously resubmitted. This one has been tendentiously resubmitted. I don't find the argument to keep and let it hit G13 persuasive in this instance, because no draft that is being tendentiously resubmitted will ever hit G13. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Snazzy the Optimist[edit]

Surely six declines is enough? Self publicist using Wikipedia as a web host 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge the author to ignore AfC and ~~unilaterally mainspace it themself~~ (no, they have a COI) Userfy, remove all AfC taggery reworded bold !vote SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC),[reply]

~~Mainspace the draft~~. Plausibly notable. Six declines shows AfC is not getting to a good solution. Allow nomination at AfD, but encourage the AfC reviewers to watch, not drive, the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that six different people all think this draft shouldn't be mainspaced. Mainspacing this and AfDing (or letting someone else do so) it is a foregone conclusion, and thus a waste of time, as is this draft's continued existence. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s not. It is plausibly notable. Nigerian topics suffer systematic bias against inclusion on Wikipedia. AfC suffers bias to only accepting obvious “keep”s if AfD-ed. Six declines with not Rejects and no useful help from reviewers means that AfC has exhausted is usefulness to the draft’s proponent. The real decision can only be made at AfD. I disagree that it would be SNOW deleted at AfD, but am interested to see how it would play out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is not a waste of time, and is a better course of action than leaving the draft in the AfC system.

Maybe the immediate action should be to Userfy, tell them they may mainspace it themself, but it does not have the support of AfC reviewers.

I strongly Oppose deletion of this draft as it is plausibly notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe Perhaps you would be kind enough to show how he passes WP:NMUSICIAN (or WP:BIO)? If you can do so I feel your argument would be totally acceptable. If not then I believe it fails. Please take your argument about systemic bias to a forum where it can be discussed. This not the correct venue. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timtrent, if I thought this passed an SNG I would promptly mainspace it, as I have done before from MfD. I don’t know for certain either way. The problem then is that MfD is the wrong forum for deciding notability.

XfDs are the right forums for discussing systematic bias, you are certainly wrong about that.

I think you completely misread my subtext. If the notability is ambiguous and AfC can’t decide, repeatedly declining never accepting or rejecting, and can’t give the author actionable advice that they can understand, then the draft needs to be kicked out of AfC. This is a conundrum. I’m suggesting that the author should be challenged with: We can’t help you, but it’s within your right to mainspace it yourself and see if it gets deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If reviewers thought the topic could not meet the SNGs then they should have Rejected, not Declined. It’s not clear whether KylieTastic (20:09, 15 March 2022) & Liance (20:29, 14 March 2022) were referring to the draft and listed references, or the topic and sources that exist. The first is encouragement to beef up the draft, and the second is a reject/delete rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- SmokeyJoe mostly comments/reviews should be taken as based on the content submitted unless the comment says a deeper look has been done. However I do think I did a brief extra check due to the claim of a charted single. However with only one song released in Oct 2021 it could be just WP:TOOSOON. Also the source for reaching 35 in the iTunes chart i find dubious as the drill down graph only shows one logged position at 90, so maybe just a temporary/daily/hourly high?. However only having 21 subscribers on YouTube, 110 monthly listeners on Spotify and 1 follower on soundcloud they do not appear to be notable for there music. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks Kyle. I agree with you. I think this is arguably GNG-meeting, but it is the only GNG source, which goes straight to TOOSOON. I think the author is pushing too hard, he needs a clear message, but deletion of the draft is too much. AfD deletion, citing TOOSOON, would be a suitable outcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Snazzy:
- Six declines is more than enough. Many AFC reviewers seldom reject a draft. The lack of a rejection does not mean that any of the reviewers thought that there was a likelihood that the draft could be made to pass acceptance, only that none of them said that it would never pass acceptance. After six declines from six different reviewers, the likelihood that it will pass acceptance becomes negligible.
- I have previously said that we need clearer guidelines about rejection, and will say it again; but we do not need clearer guidelines about rejection to delete a draft that is repeatedly declined under unfavorable circumstances.
- I consider the suggestion that we advise a conflict of interest editor to mainspace a declined draft to be a bad idea. It will be taken by other COI editors as encouragement to mainspace their declined drafts with or without encouragement from the community.
- Being in the Top 40 for national iTunes (or worldwide iTunes) is not one of the musical notability criteria.
- We should only very rarely encourage autobiographical submissions, and this is not one of these cases. We should and do discourage autobiographical submissions, and this illustrates one of the reasons why autobiographical submissions are a waste of volunteer time.
- Any reviewer who thinks that there is a greater than 50% chance that it will survive an AFD can mainspace this draft in the next six days. It is not necessary to keep it around longer in the hope that it will find a proponent.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The declines each tell the author that there is potential to improve and make worthy by editing. This is why MfD usually shouldn’t be used on a never rejected draft.
We could modify MfD instructions to say that drafts should have been rejected, however, here the justification for mfd is tendentious resubmission, but the problem is the topic is plausibly notable.
Robert is quite right about the COI issue. COI authors are required to use WP:AfC.
Autobiographies are discouraged, but autobiography is not a reason for deletion, just a bad indicator.
If I were !voting on this page at AfD, my !vote would be “Draftify”. “Plausibly notable, TOOSOON, needs a non-COI interested editor.

If this draft is deleted, the decision to delete should not be considered prejudicial to recreation by a non-COI editor.

A viable alternative to deletion due to tendentitious resubmission is to WP:BLOCK the editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion as deletion of the COI editor’s contributions will help them hide from their past mistakes and better conceal their COI an a later attempt. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, notability isn't hopeless, which is probably why it hasn't been rejected yet. I believe the article has more than a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of this making it to mainspace. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 17:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On principle I will vote keep on MFDs for drafts. If deletion was necessary, it would be done through G13.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because G13 exists. casualdejekyll 16:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G13 covers only drafts which are not being edited. If they ar being edited, however,unconstructively, itdosnot aply. The way to remove hopeless drafts is MfD, and on principle I will generally vote tp MfDa draft which does not have potential for an article after multiple revisions. We have an immens AfC backglog, and it will not help to keep around hopelss content. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The author has not edited for two weeks. The draft has been rejected, with not further edits, for a week. This is all that needs doing. To bring every hopeless draft through the MfD process is to waste far more volunteer time than to let it linger six more months. Six months lingering allows the author leisurely reflection on the reasons for deletion, and enough time for them to respond to the possible unfair rejection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible potential article at this time. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2022 (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.