Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ana Brister

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ana Brister

 * – (View MfD)

child's greeting card. We really need a speedy criterion for drafts like this,  DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I choose the wrong criterion and was declined, but it needs to go. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Does this sort of thing occur often enough for a new speedy criterion? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it does not meet WP:NEWCSD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I, having decliend the speedy, separately nominated thois for Mfd with the following comment: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, as not a plausible draft, but I have been following this forum for at least two years and don't recall something quite like this. This is sufficiently sweet and sentimental that I would remember if there had been something like it.  So if this comes to MFD every few months or every few years, it can continue to come to MFD.  That's a No to the question by User:DESiegel.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the nom, this does not need deleting. It is harmless sweet sentimental NOTWEBHOSTing that does the project no harm and will be auto-deleted by the G13 process.  Excessive hard overreaction does more harm than leaving it for the slow standard process.  I considered tagging G11, it it close to fitting, but falls short.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * G1 did not apply. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this worthless piece junk draft, joke what ever it is forever.Catfurball (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously this page has no long-term future on Wikipedia, but this level of aggression toward a brand-new editor who is presumably a child is not appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are about 5 a day, not all children.  Many do meet the criteria for G1 or G2 or  G3, and are deleted accordingly.  Instead of listing them for speedy, I can collect a few day's worth and list them here so we can see them. I think they do need a speedy criterion, butI do not know how to word it.  A policy of not deleting means that we agree that draft space can be used as a personal web site for 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: A new editor, who is almost certainly a child, wrote a nice note on-wiki to his mother. Instead of being counseled that Wikipedia is not the right place for this sentiment, the newbie was greeted in less than an hour with a CSD notice, two MFD notices, and a few hours later a templated welcome message. I recognize that there are limits to how much tailored attention can be dedicated to a new editor who creates a non-useful page, but especially in the case of an obviously younger person, "none" is not the best answer. I have placed a note on the page creator's talkpage to try to make his introduction to Wikipedia a less hostile one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If it were submitted to AFC, then you can tag it for CSD G11 promotional advertising / spam. But it was not submitted, and it is not an attack page. Warnings were placed about not being a webhost. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Odd comment, User:AngusWOOF. Tagging CSD G11 or G10 is not restricted to the page having been submitted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's because it's sitting in draft and doesn't look like it would be ready to post. It's something that could be put in the user's sandbox. I've seen a lot more promotional / personal social media "I love my (significant other) / (teacher)" that gets drafted and submitted. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've sen a lot or promotional ones also--he entire genre needs to be kept out of an encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've sen a lot or promotional ones also--he entire genre needs to be kept out of an encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Maybe I shouldn't talk about Do Not Bite the Newbies, because I don't like that guideline, because it is misused as often as it is used. It sometimes causes reviewers to tie themselves in knots to avoid being bitey with questionable editors, and it is too often used as a cudgel by combative inexperienced editors, who argue that they are being bitten when they are cautioned about civility.  It is misused more often than it is used well.  But this really is a case where a new editor has been bitten (for loving his mother, of course) who should have treated with kindness.  User:Newyorkbrad is right.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * you;'e right that we need to do it better. It's very difficult to find appropriate messages here, and suggestions would be very welcome.  DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A blanking template would work well, much better than deletion, much better than a deletion discussion with a formal nomination statement. There is no need or benefit to hiding the new users contributions from them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not the right place for this, and we can’t host personal stuff for 6 months. CoolSkittle  (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.