Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cat Frazier

 __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:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cat Frazier

 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable blogger. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to mainspace - This is a draft that is less than a year old and has never been submitted for review even once. The entire point of draftspace is that articles can sit there until they are ready to face the scrutiny of mainspace. This nomination is just using MfD as an AfD for draftspace, which completely subverts the purpose of draftspace. Second, I am confident this draft would pass AfD. It could be written a bit better, but it isn't promotional and has citations to a Washington Post column and a short piece for NYT Magazine that are both entirely about the subject (not to mention the two interviews with less prestigious but still fully independent sources). A2soup (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment as a draft seemingly abandoned for six months or more it could have been proposed for speedy deletion under CSD G13 (notablity 'issues' apart). Eagleash (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It could have, but I hope that the reviewing admin would have looked for just a few seconds at the draft itself rather than just its history before pushing the button, which would have resulted in the recognition that it is mainspace-ready. (I also hope that it wouldn't have been tagged for this reason, but you can only hope for so much.) Is it common practice to disregard whether drafts are mainspace-ready or not when applying G13? A2soup (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it would probably have depended upon the Admin. Some (and some other editors) take it upon themselves to rescue abandoned drafts. Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Rescue" makes it sound like a lot of work - it's just the difference between clicking "move" instead of "delete" if the draft is ready for mainspace. But thanks, that's a userful perspective. A2soup (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be G13 eligible as it doesn't seem to have been part of AFC --Whpq (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- This is a perfectly reasonable draft. Substantial coverage in both the NY Times and Washington Post would indicate this would very likely meet notability and would survive as a main space article.  --Whpq (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article might squeek by an AfD if moved to mainspace, but the question is, who is going to take stewardship of that process, make the necessary improvements, and argue for time in the face of a quite possible AfD?  The original author has not taken responsibility for adding the article to mainspace, and doing so is not an acceptable procedural burden to put on the closer, even if they decide it is the consensus result.  The sourcing on that article is kind of atrocious.  Those primary, non-independent, and quasi-promotional links to tumblr which constitute every third ref, have got to go, amongst others, and the citation scheme itself could use some clean-up in general.  Other editors might make objections to the tone--though, let me be clear that I think it is acceptably (if not immaculately) neutral.  All of this is a lot to put on the shoulders of someone who may not even agree with the consensus.  If either one of you wants to volunteer to shepherd the article into namespace, and bring the sourcing in line with policy, I'd !vote "weak keep" in support, on that condition.  Otherwise I'm inclined towards delete on this one.  S n o w  let's rap 01:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If an article meets GNG, it doesn't need a shepherd to be in mainspace. It's okay to have not-perfect article. Also, I honestly don't understand your argument that we should delete a draft at MfD because it might need cleanup to pass AfD and you don't believe Wikipedia editors are willing clean up a draft. What is draftspace even for? Are we using MfD as a screen for AfD now? No, this is MfD, we are deciding on whether this *draft* deserves to be deleted, and we have to judge it on the criteria that apply to drafts. If someone decides to move it to mainspace after this MfD concludes, and if it is subsequently sent to AfD, then you can argue at that forum that it deserves deletion because a minority of its refs are non-independent and you don't like its citation style. A2soup (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've completely missed the substance of my inquiry. You made a two-part proposal.  Keep and move to mainspace.  I believe the standards regarding MfD with regard to draftpsace mean this content cannot be maintained indefinitely; but whether or not the six months without activity by the original author justifies deletion from draftspace was not what I was speaking to.   My main inquiry was clearly about who is going to add this article to mainspace.  Becase A) it is not fair or realistic to expect the closer to do so and B) what is the point of adding it if insufficient efforts are then made to bring the article to a state where it survives AfD?  That would ultimately just be a waste of community resources and time.


 * Essentially, all I did was point out that  if  (and  only if ) you really thought well enough of this content to preserve it in article space, there was a route to do so.  I'm not saying that you should do,  if you don't have the time or inclination.  But just noting that you think it should be in mainspace is probably not going to be enough in this instance.  Because, at an absolute minimum, someone has to move it to mainspace, and at that point they become the article's creator, which has at least some small consequence in various matters running the gambit from technical, policy, and pragmatic considerations.  Expecting someone else to pick up the work and responsibility here (minimal as they may be) for your policy call is probably expecting too much in this instance.  It's more likely that if none of the article's proponents take the initiative to create it in namespace, no one will. And eventually it may be removed from draftspace altogether.


 * But there's an additional procedural snag here in that, if you tried to create the article in a way that seemed to defy the consensus here (say, for example, the consensus was to delete), then some might accuse you of defying process. So all I was ultimately saying to you was the following:   if and only if  you want to create this article, I would support that effort.  But you seem to somehow have turned that offer of potential support on its ear to make it look as if I am making demands of you as a consequence of your !vote.  That's not so. If you don't want to create the article, simply don't.  If you do want to, I can !vote in support of that option. It's really that simple.  I'm just saying, don't expect the article to be created in mainspace if you or another editor who is in favour of it is not willing to take some of the responsibility for doing so, since the original author is either not here or not willing to play that role themselves.   S n o w  let's rap 09:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that draft space is a bad idea. It is contrary to the spirit of a wiki in which anybody can contribute to an article because the draft space essentially hides the article from everybody.  In this particular case, the topic is likely notable.  If this were to have been created directly in mainspace, it would have been visible for other editors to see.  Issues of referencing and whatnot would be visible (possibly tagged) and has a chance to be fixed through regular collaborative editting.  If kept, I'll take a closer look at cleaning this up and promoting it to mainspace.  -- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That essentially sums up my perspectives too, and the manner in which I've seen consensus bear out in the past in cases of content left in draft and/or user space for too long. While G13 is written to specifically allow for routine clean-up if the content was created by way of RfC, the same rationale is usually seen to apply as readily to draftspace generally, in cases of long-term abandonment of the draft.  After-all, at least in the case of RfC submissions there is, as you allude to, some community oversight, collaboration, and input on that material and its viability for the encyclopedia and the project.   The rationale and community consensus enshrined in G13 (that drafts should be deleted if the author does not eventually put them forward for assessment of conformity with our policies) is more meaningful for non-AfC drafts, not less.  Nevertheless, every time I've seen this issue come up (here or at various noticeboards), someone always points out the loophole in G13's wording as an argument for why the draft should be preserved indefinitely, regardless of whether or not the original author is still around or whether they (or anyone) ever intends to move it to mainspace.  But the consensus rarely ends up supporting this interpretation and the content ultimately gets deleted, after a time.  That's why a decision needs to be made, sooner or later, as to whether the article in question is suitable for mainspace.  But that also requires someone believing enough in it to add it (not always a guarantee) and defend it against deletion while it is improved, if it is not quite yet up to snuff with regard to notability or what-have-you. In this case, I'm not doing cartwheels over this article's sourcing and notability, but I do think it can be preserved if someone is willing to devote a little TLC. I'm not going to be that person for this particular article, but I would !vote to give such editors time if anyone is interested.  S n o w  let's rap 19:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see now that your concern was with the second part of my !vote, not the keep part, which makes more sense. That said, I still don't agree there is any burden on the closer to "shepherd" the article once in mainspace - the closer is just an uninvolved admin carrying out consensus. I guess my position here is based on my total disbelief that this article would be deleted at AfD, with or without a mainspace "shepherd". I don't generally participate there, but it is a sad state of affairs if an article written in a non-promotional style about a subject with substantive coverage in the Washington Post and NYT Magazine, in addition to multiple less prestigious but still independent and non-promotional sources, is the sort of thing you would expect to be deleted there. But if other people who know AfD better than me think it could be deleted, I will happily volunteer to move and watchlist it myself as soon as I finish shedding a solitary tear for the state of AfD. A2soup (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2017 (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.