Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Andriman Farahany

 __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. North America1000 08:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Andriman Farahany


Stale draft with just the letter "A" on it. The contributor joined in March and never returned. We really need a CSD for the most obvious of stale drafts like this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 11:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Either a CSD, or just blank them. Indeed, why hide the newcomer's edit history?  Creating a discussion over just the letter "A" is obviously not a productive action.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there has been resistance to the idea of a CSD for no content stale drafts or other obvious deletion criteria for the draftspace. I certainly would invite such a discussion. Until then, the only way to remove them from the various database reports that identify potentially problematic drafts is to drag them here, unfortunately. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I was having some almost-productive discussions with Ricky, hindered by his continual restarting of parallel discussions in multiple places. There are examples of almost-breakthroughs at (in archives of) WT:CSD, WT:Drafts, WT:WikiProject Abandonded drafts.  I think, there was tentative agreement for A* criteria to be adapted to to D* criteria, except not all of them, and all require rewording.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You tend to lean more on the "retain content" side than, well, most anyone. My advice would be to draft something you think is reasonable and just post it to a village pump. If you find it acceptable, than I believe others almost certainly will. I'll take any progress over no progress, even if I'll likely wish we'd go farther than the criteria you'd present. I'm in complete agreement with you that we shouldn't clog MfD with these things, but in trying to clear out the attack pages, copyvios, and advertising nonsense, these seriously get in the way. It's easier to find a needle in a haystack if you gradually remove the hay instead of leaving it there, and I've found some pretty egregious things in drafts. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You subtly misread me, I am less about "retain by default" than about opposing MfD scope creep to "make any cleanup an administrator issue" and general opposition to busywork. I am in favour of D* CSDs, but have seen many times that a proposal is quickly rejected due to even small weaknesses in proposed wording, and that each rejection makes the next proposal harder.  I'll ping you when I find the archived last best progress.  In the meantime, your input on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luke Cutforth (2nd nomination), a more interesting, more significant, trickier example, would be appreciated.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Almost a G1, though I suppose "a" is a word. I don't think G6 would have been unreasonable in this case. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 13:39, 22 November 2016 (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.