Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Babar Azam Statistics

 __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. Deleted per consensus at Articles for deletion/Babar Azam statistics in International Cricket Yunshui 雲 水 13:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Babar Azam Statistics

 * – (View MfD)

Placing this draft at MfD per suggestion at Articles for deletion/Babar Azam statistics in International Cricket. This draft is essentially a duplication of that article, and both strongly fail WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. I can't see a way this article in this concept will pass AFC. Hog Farm (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The best approach would have been to Redirect the draft to the article, which is the usual approach when an article duplicates a draft. I do this all the time at Articles for Creation, mostly with Start-Class articles, but also with articles that have been tagged for AFD, to allow the draft to survive or be deleted with the article.  However, now that this has been tagged for MFD, it says not to move or blank it unilaterally.  So the best course at this point is to put a link to this MFD in the AFD, and let the discussion at the AFD run for the seven days, and then either Keep or Delete this draft based on what is done with the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, but just let the AFD run its course, and deal with this draft in the same way as we do with the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Defer to Articles for deletion/Babar Azam statistics in International Cricket. If the AfD concludes as "delete" not notable, or not suitable, then delete the draft.  However, if the AfD concludes "TOOSOON", then keep the draft.  If the AfD concludes as "keep", then Speedy redirect.  In any case, wait for the AfD to conclude.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thank you to User:SmokeyJoe for explaining what I was trying to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold for now per User:SmokeyJoe's reasoning above. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NODEADLINES and not to be BITEy and wait for the WP:CSD clock to run its course. It could, potentially, be useful. Doug Mehus T · C  02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you still want to keep the draft even if the identical copy in the article space is deleted at AfD? Hog Farm (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing really wrong with the article other than it lacks citations and is an ultra-short stub. As written and assuming there were reliable, independent sources that met our general notability and supplementary notability guidelines, I would probably !vote to "delete" at AfD, with alternate options to "draftify" or "userify" as also being acceptable. But we're not at AfD; we're at MfD, and notability and verifiability guidelines simply do not apply. If the draft goes unedited for six months, then speedy delete it. Doug Mehus T · C  14:44, 26 January 2020 (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.