Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Best Beauty Pageant Countries

 __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. From what I can tell, the remaining discussion is not directly related to this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Best Beauty Pageant Countries


Stale draft from 2014. Just an opinion piece by the author. Zero references and no encyclopedic value. ~ RobTalk 18:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no advantage to doing this maintenance, certainly not if it requires an MfD listing for every page. This page can be tidied up by redirecting to Beauty pageant, it could then never cause any harm to anyone or anything.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That redirect wouldn't be a good idea because it implies that users will find (or should find, even) non-neutral information at the target. I have started redirecting some drafts rather than nominating them as a result of your previous feedback, but I didn't think it was a good idea here. And keeping no-hope drafts both encourages NOTWEBHOST behavior from editors and makes it harder for editors working to find promising drafts to find those drafts and get them ready for the mainspace. ~ RobTalk 04:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per that explanation (a redirect would imply non-neutral information). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that a kept no-hope drafts encourages NOTWEBHOST behaviour? I think not.  In any case, a far better first response, even well belated, is to WP:Welcome the author, as doing so gives them a list a very helpful links.  (I am a supported of auto-welcoming, never understood why not).
 * "harder for editors working to find promising drafts". How about you tag promising drafts with Promising draft, and replace no-hope drafts with Non-starter draft?  These could auto-categorize, and thus make it easier for others to find promising drafts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's more-or-less an unanswerable question due to imperfect data (we can't perfectly track editors who come here with intent to host their content but not contribute to an encyclopedia). But the incentives are pretty straight-forward. If you want free web-hosting, are you more likely to host content with a site that will keep it forever for free or a site that will delete it? As for finding promising drafts, User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report wouldn't be helped by those categories, which is where I found this particular draft. I wouldn't mind the creation of the former template (undoubtedly useful), but any pages with Non-starter draft on them are probably better deleted or redirected, in my opinion. And I'm all for welcoming. I do it regularly. In this case, the creator was an IP that hasn't edited since January 2015, so welcoming won't accomplish much. ~ RobTalk 05:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be much happier to see Non-starter draft periodically culled than to see harmless non-starters listed individually. I think that could be much more efficient.  At culling time, a cursory review could check that the tagging are being correctly applied.  In the meantime, the benefit of replacing with Non-starter draft would be that the AfC template (with the rest of the non-starter content) is removed.
 * As per my thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts, redirects should be used whenever suitable, which is for accidental content forks. Over-specific drafting should be redirected to a page section.
 * Thanks for your efforts Rob, I think you are doing a good job. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Messaging you on your talk page about this idea. I really like it. ~ RobTalk 05:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob. Two people in agreement is a pretty good start.   Maybe you could comment at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts.  Or even better, improve the idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 21 June 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.