Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter

 __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. TOOSOON isn't a deletion rationale for drafts. With those omitted, most of the policy-compliant !votes are for keeping this draft. I do urge avoidance of speculation about possible actions of living persons, though. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Perhaps a re-look is required of this draft about a living person in self-announced hospice care, written in an invented timeline post his death. A person in hospice may pass away quite soon, or may live for some time. Should we allow drafts to be made and kept in advance with make-believe fictitious comments and events, claiming it is not a BLP violation? I believe there is no hurry to create such drafts with make believe statements. Lourdes 08:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete fake alt-future(?) fiction Dronebogus (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What, in what versions, was fake? Placeholder date for “died” is not fake. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON is a textbook reason to put something in draftspace, as opposed to mainspace. It has never been a reason to delete from draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There's nothing fictitious here. It's normal for news organizations to have obituaries on people written before they die; preparing this sort of article is similar. If this was an article it would obviously be TOOSOON but this is valid as a draft. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as improved, perhaps move to Draft:Planning for the death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter, which would parallel the longstanding article Operation London Bridge, which similarly reported planning for the death of Queen Elizabeth., I have now removed all placeholder information (however well-supported) in favor of sourced explanations of what is legally required and expected by the sources to occur. , please note that WP:TOOSOON is inapplicable to drafts (in fact, the policy specifically states: "If an article is deemed TOOSOON, you may consider writing a draft"). BD2412  T 13:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Absolutely not. This is exactly what drafts are for. It's particularly useful since when it does occur, there will be something concrete in place and thus avoiding the free-for-all that usually results from editors all rushing to edit the page at the same time. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON for an article, yes, but this is a draft. Y'all need to stop applying article quality standards to draftspace. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: The norm here is that WP:TOOSOON don’t apply to drafts since one of the main points of drafts is to prepare articles for future events such as Draft:Untitled Nova series and Draft:2023 Women's Gold Cup (India). There are no WP:BLP violations as there are numerous reliable sources in the draft that indicate that Jimmy (no not that Jimmy) is going to die soon and that there is funeral planned for him. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot see how WP:TOOSOON can apply to draftspace, and any potential BLP violations have been removed. It is not fiction but instead is preparing an article which is certain to be published when the event inevitably occurs. Seems a valid use of draftpace to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. OK, this is a draft, but I still think it should be on someone's computer, not here, while he is still alive. --Bduke (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that multiple editors are interested in this draft, are you basically suggest that editors should be collaborating off-wiki in the drafting of Wikipedia content? BD2412  T 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am probably thinking that we should wait until someone has died before we even draft an article. Why the hurry? The details of the death will still need to be added to the draft. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: both dead tree and broadcast news pre-prepare obits for famous people well in advance, including for the peanut farmer JC. Why should WE be squeamish about death? AUSPOLLIE (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to say keep. brings a great point: if news outlets pre-prepare articles about the death of famous people, why shouldn't Wikipedia?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 09:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: We can suspend crystalball since his death is inevitable, and entering hospice is a reasonable signal for the approaching inevitable event. I see no issue writing in advance in as long as it is kept in the draft or userspace until the actual death. It gives editors time to research and flesh out the structure and content in a collaborative manner before the frenzied pace of deathitors takes over upon his death. – robertsky (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While I think technically this is allowed, I think it is both in rather poor taste, and eliminates one of the joys of Wikipedia and the kind of thing which may attract new editors, i.e. the collaborative, real-time creation of such articles as the event unfolds. It's one of the things that makes Wikipedia special and for many attractive, which is being denied here by some insiders already preparing a well-structured draft ready to be deployed. It may look more professional, but it is so much more boring, incrowd, ... Fram (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: An encyclopaedia is supposed to look professional. Wikipedia has acquired enough of an amateur hour image, don't you think? AUSPOLLIE (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That rather misses my point. Fram (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, Fram's point is that having a predefined draft denies the opportunity for new editors to collaborate and contribute and become involved in the building of an article, which is one of the main draws to Wikipedia, especially for irregular contributors who aren't quite sure yet whether or not they want to create an account. Being able to see the fruits of your labor in an article, even if it's just a small sentence or even a handful of words, is gratifying. "Amateurish"? Maybe, but none of us here are being paid, so it's hardly a misnomer.
 * That being said, where Fram and I disagree is that having a draft already doesn't necessarily mean that it will for sure be the definitive bedrock for an article. There's absolutely nothing stopping an editor from removing an article layout or outline they feel is unsuitable and starting over. --⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft should be a fairly definitive bedrock for an article, as it is intended to be structured and formatted consistently with other articles on the deaths and state funerals of U.S. presidents. Ensuring that consistency of presentation at the outset is a substantial reason for laying out the draft in advance. BD2412  T 17:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do understand good faith intentions of the draft creator, I do have a different concern to share. Even if one deletes draft now, it creates mirror on some other websites. Mainstream news media does not keep ready news-in-advance in copyright free realm. Any mischievous fellow can pick a ready draft from here or internet and attempt to spread a fake news easily. So I advice to minimum level try to have caution notice in every section or some other care mechanism if keep the draft or delete it. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advice to lock draft move for unconfirmed users. I know may be mischievous fellows  can use chatbots to create a fake news but here we might up aiding the process. But in this case a smart mischievous fellow might bring draft prematurely to main space and give link on the social media.
 * I am writing this because I have seen over enthusiastic users bringing other user's draft prematurely to article space. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. BD2412  T 17:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , please undo this clearly WP:INVOLVED and wrong use of the admin tools. This is the second time you used the tools with regards to this article, you really should stop. Fram (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Er, you restricted moving of the draft from non-autoconfirmed editors who weren't able to move it anyway. This doesn't seem to do anything. Anyway, move protecting a draft like this takes away the main reason for having a draft at all (so it can be moved to mainspace at the time). Fram is also correct that you should not use your admin tools on your own drafts, and doing so again after being called out on it is not a good look at all. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was merely fulfilling a request (move-protecting the draft would not have occurred to me at all), but point taken, and undone. I would imagine that at this point there are enough eyes on the draft to prevent any shenanigans. BD2412  T 14:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mixed feelings about this. The cynical view is it's using draftspace to call dibs on article creation before that topic exists and/or an extreme case of wikijackaling, but at the end of the day it is in line with the purpose of draftspace, mirrors a practice used by newspapers (many of which definitely have a Carter obit at the ready), and does ensure that we have some sourced content ready to go for an inevitable article. I mean, there's not a lot here that couldn't just be copied from one of the other Carter-related articles when he dies, but still seems pretty reasonable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - pre-writing a draft article about an expected event, even a funeral, is a normal and constructive activity. It helps ensure a higher-quality article will be available for readers when the event occurs, than if we waited until after the event to begin writing. While waiting might bring in some new editors, and recruitment is important, having new editors start a new article about a recent death is a pretty terrible idea for obvious reasons (WP:BLP). It might be fun for new editors but it won't be good for the readers, or for the article subject, and they are more important than new editors. Thanks for starting the draft, BD. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, reasonable topic for a draft at this point (unlike Obama's or Trump's funerals). Of course there is no guarantee that someone else won't start the article from scratch when the time has come, and that is also fine. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Move/Rename to Draft:Planning for the death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter. The title is the problem, because a typical reaction on seeing it is to ask, "Did he die?"  Advance obituaries of print newspapers are not in a space as public as draft space.  Change the title.  (And stop wheel-warring.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reversing another admin's action is not wheel-warring. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep essentially per Levivich and Rhododendrites. Not unsympathetic to Fram's nostalgia, but we can still do that when truly unexpected events arise. This one isn't, and an announced hospice admission is an appropriate bright line beyond which it is clearly OK to prepare for the death of a public figure. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not just “a living person”. This is a former US President of enduring international significance, and continuous public interest. The relevant policy is at WP:BLPPRIVATE. There is nothing close to a violation at play here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: No BLP violations at the time of this comment. WP:TOOSOON is an essay, and explicitly recommends writing a draft as an alternative. I'm not convinced that WP:CRYSTAL applies here, since a) this is a draft, not an article and b) everything in the draft is verifiable and supported by reliable sources, with the exception of one statement comparing Carter's age to the ages of other US presidents that satisfies WP:BLUE. Some argue that developing a draft to move to article space when someone dies is bad form, but that's not a cogent reason to delete. I wouldn't object if someone moves it to Draft:Planning for the death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter. &mdash; SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 23:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC) (edited 18:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC))
 * This reminds me of Draft:Death and state funeral of Donald Trump, which was created (also by BD2412) shortly after the news that Trump had contracted COVID-19. In that instance, two separate administrators also applied an WP:IAR deletion for BLP reasons (see also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BD2412/DSFDT). I think there are likely differences between that instance and the current one that may allow a separate approach. WP:CRYSTALBALL does allow for the inclusion of scheduled or expected future events ... only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It is a little morbid though... this kind of draft is indeed rather BLP-sensitive because it is a statement that Wikipedia editors believe that someone will die soon, and we need to be right about this kind of stuff, with reliance on high-quality reliable sources. On the other hand, BD2412 makes a valid point that there is precedent for these kinds of articles if the planning for the death of a notable person is itself notable, as in the case of Operation London Bridge. Overall, I have no strong opinion here. Mz7 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever knew that happened. That makes this make a lot more sense. But I still agree with others above that the difference here is hospice, which is a pretty good bright line for this sort of thing. Levivich (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I remember that. I guarantee you that media outlets across the political spectrum were preparing obituaries then as well, just in case. I do agree that this is a much clearer case, and perhaps we should have a policy spelled out for when such preparations become appropriate for development of a draft. BD2412  T 00:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Gerald Ford dead today..." Levivich (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After thinking on this further, I'll also add that the death of a former US president surely must be treated differently from the death of the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, so comparing this to Operation London Bridge may not be apples-to-apples. Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is nothing analogous to that, but I also can't think of anything closer to that. On a separate note, three years ago today, I created the article currently at the title COVID-19 vaccine, which was immediately proposed for deletion as premature. BD2412  T 00:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * CRYSTALBALL applies to articles, not to drafts. Additionally, I fail to see how one saying that they expect a public figure to die soon is a BLP violation. It's not anything negative about the person, and it's not (in this case) based on any private information. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - CRYSTALBALL applies to much of the current content, and beyond that we dont create spinout articles preemptively. The correct place for placing material on the death of Jimmy Carter when it occurs at some point in the future is Jimmy Carter. Things like it is expected Biden will do blah, it is expected most living presidents will do blah are clearly CRYSTAL failures, and the existence of an article on the death and funeral of Carter is dependent on if it should be split from the article on Jimmy Carter when it happens or sometime thereafter.  nableezy  - 03:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply in draft space at all, which can permissibly host content on speculated future events, in this case the things that are expected to happen are reported by reliable sources as expected to happen, which is permissible even if this were in article space. BD2412  T 04:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed reliably sourced speculation about the future, but we are not in the business of speculating about the future. It is a medical certainty that Barack Obama will die, why not Draft:Death and state funeral of Barack Obama? You also did not address the issue of preemptively splitting Jimmy Carter, where material on his death should start and only if it gets too large then be split off.  nableezy  - 05:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per State funeral of John F. Kennedy, Death and state funeral of Richard Nixon, Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford, Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, and Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush, this is the universal practice for modern U.S. presidents. This is demonstrably applicable to the present case based on the fact that sources are already reporting on elements of the subject's state funeral, and arrangements that have already been made for it. Again, this is a draft, in draftspace. This is what draftspace is for. BD2412  T 05:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The arrangements that have already been made should be in the Carter main article, the speculation on what will be should not.  nableezy  - 17:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources on speculation, sourced speculation, belongs in the draft. Sources for speculation may be reliable for the speculation, and reliable for indicating what the real world is interested in, but in time they will be low quality primary sources that are best never added to the mainspace article. This is an excellent reason to have draftspace and this draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They are reliable that so and so speculated such and such. But it remains not Wikipedia's purpose to include speculation about future event. Not everything in a reliable source belongs on Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 17:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weve now had something in our draft space something titled implying a living person dying for over two weeks. The idea that because somebody enters hospice that means this is inevitable is true only in the sense that we are all engaging in the act of dying at all times. It did not, and never did, mean that his death was any more imminent than any other person on this planet. There is zero cause for the inclusion of something with this title anywhere on Wikipedia until it happens. Make a draft Draft:Planning for the state funeral of Jimmy Carter if youd like, but this is not at all in keeping with our BLP requirements.  nableezy  - 18:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline (so to speak) for this draftspace to be moved to mainspace. Why are you in such a hurry? Nothing has changed, with this I concur. This doesn't affect my assertion here, or any other that I can see. Being impatient for a death quite puts the hearse before the horse. We are totally in-bounds on preparing a draft about a POTUS's imminent death, given the news coverage supporting the gentleman's pending demise. I hope President Carter lives long enough for me to strikethrough my assertions here. Would we should be so fortunate. Today this is still a keep. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not in a hurry, I dont want a title implying somebody died before they died, in any space. So title it on what you can actually support, that being preparation for a state funeral.  nableezy  - 18:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you unfamiliar with hospice? Hospice is for the terminally ill. The expectation of imminent death (within six months) is a requirement for hospice care in the United States. Entering hospice very much means that your death is expected to be more imminent than other people on this planet, and furthermore, that you're not trying to stop it anymore; it means your medical care has gone from life-saving care to palliative care. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am quite familiar with hospice thank you very much. There is no definition of imminent that includes 2+ weeks, much less 6 months. Maybe you misunderstood the intent of my comment, but people die every day, and you or me may well pass before Carter.  nableezy  - 18:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps The Onion has it right, then. BD2412  T 19:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats proving the point, we're all dying. It is as mathematically certain that Barack Obama will die as it is that Jimmy Carter will die. Why arent you making Draft:Death and state funeral of Barack Obama?  nableezy  - 23:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If Barack Obama was a 98-year-old cancer survivor with numerous reported medical issues, who had announced that they were no longer seeking treatment for those issues, and were instead entering hospice, and whose family was then reported as having gone to their house to spend literally their final days with them, then certainly I would start such a draft. BD2412  T 00:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is an event which is going to happen, any day. Being prepared with a good base article about the subject makes too much sense. This is exactly why draft space is the right place for this material. Every major journal in the country has been preparing this sort of draft file for weeks. For immediate publication once the death is confirmed. Keeping the draft helps prevent other random actors from jumping the gun or editing in an disruptive manner. BusterD (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keeping the draft (an action I support) neither prevents others from jumping the gun, nor should it. —Kusma (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're correct of course, but with a draft underway, it seems likely the community may give this subject some sober thought before taking rash action. This discussion itself helps prevent disruption by establishing a sort of consensus. BusterD (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The draft helps prevent newscycle chatter on the indelicate matter being manifest in the edit history of the mainspace article.  And no non-Wikipedian would normally see the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete — There is an assumption on Wikipedia that articles should be created immediately. While writing the background information for an article whose topic is expected to become mainspace worthy in a text file or user subpage is not a particularly bad idea, writing a draft such as this requires the assumption that the death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter will occur within six months. Although the maximum length of eligibility for hospice happens to be six months, I fail to see how this article truly meets the use of the draftspace.


 * The draftspace is typically subject to looser restrictions than mainspace in order to ensure notability can be established, and there is no risk to creating a draftspace article as drafts are not indexed in Google. This particular draft presents a loophole within the draft system; although its title does not meet notability, its contents are sourced nonetheless. Having read this draft, there are several issues at play:


 * Planning is underway for the expected death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, age 98. — While it is likely that the U.S. government is preparing for Carter's death, no official statement has been made regarding the government's response.
 * Carter had been the earliest-serving living former president since the death of Gerald Ford in 2006. — This statement assumes Carter has already died and is no longer the earliest-serving living former president.
 * Although Carter is technically dying, the article's title is "Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter". Adding on to that, the expectation that Biden will hold a state funeral for Jimmy Carter is highly likely, but not guaranteed, and until such an announcement is made, the article would be titled "Death of Jimmy Carter".


 * Seeing as the draft review process occurs at a much more rigorous pace than an article such as this should go through, and an article for Carter's death will likely be created regardless, I see no use in maintaining this draft. While creating a list of sources to use as background information is acceptable and would certainly be welcome, the use of such sources to defend an article that does not meet such notability is not.


 * The argument I have seen is that WP:CRYSTALBALL supports the creation of a draft such as this, because scheduled or expected future events [can be created] only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This clause works for articles such as 2024 U.S. presidential election as the election is a quadrennial event; it does not work for the death of a person as there is simply little to write about their death itself. A biannual or quadrennial event is guaranteed to occur and have enough information, but a death presents too many possibilities to be feasible. The "death of Henry Kissinger", for instance, is nearly guaranteed given Kissinger's age, but writing a draft about his death is premature. This logic extends to figures that, while not "dying", may potentially die. An editor in this discussion pointed to Draft:Death and state funeral of Donald Trump following the announcement that Trump had contracted COVID-19. The argument towards removing that draft is stronger, because as the president, Trump is unlikely to die of COVID-19.


 * I'll counter a few arguments here:


 * A few editors have suggested that this article should be moved to Draft:Planning for the death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter. There is simply a lack of sources regarding the planning for Jimmy Carter's death. Operation London Bridge is an established plan and was known decades before the Queen's death.
 * The death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter is not—as one editor said—similar to Draft:Untitled Nova series. There is enough information to create a draft on the untitled Nova series, but not for Jimmy Carter's death.
 * Wikipedia is not held to the same standards as typical news organizations. While I'm sure many editors were preparing for the Queen's death as soon as information came out about her condition, this was an individual endeavor, and does not represent what Wikipedia should be.


 * Allowing this draft to exist sets a precedent, and one that is based almost exclusively on seeking to get information out as quickly as possible, rather than ensure its coverage or even veracity. While I understand creating text documents with events that are expected to happen in order to ensure that their respect article is covered in fair detail—and believe me, I have a few—a draft creates a statement that this event will happen. To be clear, Jimmy Carter will die, but the question is when, and quite frankly, I do not see this draft developing in a meaningful state.


 * There is a 2008 satirical article from The Onion referencing the swiftness of Wikipedia editors in changing the "is" to "was" or adding the date of death to the lede sentence in the articles of well-known figures, such as Heath Ledger. This is a frequently referenced joke, even among people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's inner workings. This is the reputation that the site has towards the deceased; editors flock to the article to be the first to report on the death of a well-known actor or politician. This draft does not rebuke that reputation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All joking aside, it is a practical matter of fact that when events like these occur, readers do turn to Wikipedia to get the most complete picture, and they do so quickly. I have a quote from another editor that I keep on my talk page: It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia. That service is done by having a well-organized draft underway at the moment that the article is needed. As for the "assumption that the death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter will occur within six months", this is a well-supported assumption in this case. Per the Western Journal of Medicine, "A patient is eligible for hospice care if he or she has an estimated life expectancy of 6 months or less (but) the actual length of stay is usually less than 6 weeks". Of course, we don't know if the subject actually entered hospice care somewhat earlier, and just chose to have it announced at this point, but as presently noted in the article, the subject's children and grandchildren have gone to his home to be with him during this time. It seems unlikely that the family would congregate there now expecting to wait months. BD2412  T 13:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You've given a lot of good arguments as to why the draft isn't needed; but I don't really see a reason why the draft should be deleted. Allowing this draft to exist sets a precedent, and one that is based almost exclusively on seeking to get information out as quickly as possible, rather than ensure its coverage or even veracity. - To me this seems like a broader cultural issue that permeates Wikipedia as a whole, rather than a linchpin that can be directly tied to the existence of this particular draft and its ilk. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I had not paid attention to the "ensure its coverage or even veracity" line, but every potentially contentious point now in the draft is reliably sourced (supporting both coverage and veracity). In the case of the relative ages of other current and former presidents, these are easy to verify mathematically. BD2412  T 19:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, or at least move to userspace to allow the creator to work on it. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Userspace is not particularly inviting for collaboration, particularly with respect to a subject for which events are likely to develop quickly. If this can be in userspace, it can be in draftspace; both are non-public-facing spaces. BD2412  T 13:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference: The red link Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter tells you that this draft exists, but would not tell you that a userspace draft exists. So drafts are more public-facing than userspace. —Kusma (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In a good way, though, yes? Death and state funeral of Jimmy Carter is not linked from any article, so the person searching for that title is probably planning to create an article, and should be alerted to the fact that a draft exists. BD2412  T 14:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, both. BusterD (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Snopes reminds us how this is routine for dead tree newspapers and television. Again, Wikipedia should not bow to Western world cultural squeamishness about death. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – robertsky (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.