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 No consensus to delete - will ((userpage blanked)). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alisarsharkhan/Dead Parrots Society

[edit]

Stale draft. Not enough for an article. I found a little bit of coverage [1], [2] [3] but not enough to pass GNG for a university student club performance group. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this were in draft space, it would have been speedied. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and replace with Template:Userpage blanked, which would have been preferable to an MfD nom. This does no harm - why waste admin time, and MfD time and space? I have no idea what relevance GNG has to a userspace draft, and I am curious as to what criterion would have justified its speedy deletion in draftspace. A2soup (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Stale draft" is not a valid reason for deletion even in Draft space, much less in user space, and none of the CSD apply here, so this would NOT be validly speedy deleted. It is always possible that more sources could be found, and this would become valid as an article. Until then, i see no reason to delete a page from someone's user space that was apparently created in good faith. DES ^(talk) 00:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no chance the group will pass GNG or other applicable criteria, there is no value in the page to the project. Therefore it falls into WP:NOWEBHOST category. In this case, I want to confirm failure of GNG to justify deletion. I pushed much better articles into draft space and they get rejected for notability. WP:STALE is absolutely a valid reason to delete, as is WP:COPIES and other reasons tp delete in any space. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALE says "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." I don't see this as "problematic", which has to mean something beyond "of no potential". Moreover i wouldn't agree that this is "of no potential". It surely wouldn't pass an AfD nor an AfC Review as it stands, but additional sources might be found or the group might become more notable. Besides, I believe that I agree with those who have been campaigning to remove the deletion provision of WP:STALE completely. Until it is removed, IMO it should be construed narrowly, i.e. to apply only when there is problematic content, such as a negative BLP, a hoax, or something that does actual harm. DES ^(talk) 12:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Possibly notable, and this is not the forum to judge on the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why is this xfd not an appropriate place to judge GNG? That is a core principle and exactly how we often judge the usefulness of pages here. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)p[reply]

The GNG only applies to articles, and articles are reviewed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep–if moved into article space then could be deleted for being non-notable. This is a perfectly acceptable draft for a topic which may or may not be (or become) notable. Why is there any benefit in deleting it? Amisom (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with ((inactive userpage blanked)). It's a draft from July 2011 but not problematic. It doesn't have to be a stand-alone article. It could with the sources just become a redirect to Western Washington University or somewhere and the content mentioned there. Blanking allows the name to still show up if searched for in case someone later wants to work on this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2016 (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.