Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chris Larsen (Football)

 __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The result of the discussion was:  withdrawn as the subject has been cleared of the assault charge as of today, so the potential for BLP violations has been mitigated. There is still a small risk, but that can be controlled. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Chris Larsen (Football)

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Completely unsourced and effectively abandoned BLP of a person with no strong claim of notability; he was drafted by a major league sports team in 2019, but has never actually suited up or taken the field in a game, which means that he does not yet pass WP:NGRIDIRON as of today. Now, normally in draftspace I would have just let the clock run out on this until it was deleted as a stale draft, but WP:PERP has forced my hand: he has now been accused (but not yet convicted) in a gaybashing attack, and suspended from the team pending the investigation. This, of course, does not bolster his notability at all, and instead just makes him a WP:BLP1E as things currently stand, but there's a very high risk of this page becoming a magnet for policy-violating attack edits in the interim. So we're better off just not holding onto it at all, and starting from scratch if he ever attains a stronger basis for notability than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - although I would normally be first in line to declare that drafts are harmless, there is real potential for harm to a non-notable person through the presence of this draft. For that reason and since it is effectively abandoned (by an editor whose only two edits are to this draft) I endorse WP:IAR speedy deletion for this. The draft can easily be refunded if the player becomes notable for some reason which is not an untried accusation of a serious crime. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as while the concerns are valid, no policy violating edits have taken place; it being a draft doesn't prevent such edits from being reverted or such edits from resulting in protection of the draft. —  csc -1 20:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Ivanvector. I'm not entirely convinced of the BLP argument, because draftspace isn't indexed and someone would essentially have to know this page exists to introduce BLPVIOs to it, but though the risk is slim it's large enough I can see the point (it could be found through the internal search engine). Vaticidalprophet 02:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Bearcat - Did you forget to notify the originator of the MFD, or did you decide not to notify them, or did Twinkle make a mistake? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification is not a requirement, and may sometimes be an inferior choice, see WP:GRAVEYARD. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete because this MFD has otherwise restarted the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignore I won't go so far as to say keep and stand in the way of deletion since this was going to be deleted in a few weeks anyway, but is an extremely silly reason to delete especially in no-indexed draftspace where the vandalism will never be seen. Users that vandalise drafts may be blocked, pages that are subject to high levels of vandalism may be protected, and deleting drafts does not stop anyone from immediately creating a BLP violating one. Even salting won't stop that, as it's easily evaded with page title variants. We need to AvoidIllusion. The next time this happens just watchlist the page. Chances are this would've been quietly deleted without anyone noticing, remember bringing drafts to mfd massively increases their viewership. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, no matter how difficult it may be to find draft pages on a casual web search, it literally takes just one person finding it and tweeting it out on social media with a "let's go show this dude what we think of what he did" message to blow up that safety valve. So unfortunately, I don't buy that it's ignorable just because it hasn't already fallen victim to hit and run editing yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And no matter how obscure our internal processes are, it takes only one person to navigate AFC, create a BLP violating draft and tweet it out on social media, and deleting the current draft, or even salting the title, won't stop that. MFD has massively higher viewership than any draft, and incomparably more incoming external links. The very fact of bringing this here greatly increases the chances of the very events happening that you are seeking to prevent, and deleting this very mfd would have far more value to your end than deleting the draft (cf. Streissand effect). Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete While I don't agree with draft nominating in most cases, I am persuading by the BLP argument.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2021 (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.