Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Democratic Plantation

 __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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 10:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Democratic Plantation


This was put in mainspace and then speedy deleted Democratic plantationas housekeeping. There is a discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents which is weighing the merits of a TBAN from this and related topics or an INDEF. Deletion of this draft is housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and pushing non-notable and poorly sourced conspiracy theories. We are not a free web hosting service for publishing and editors' private vendettas against their ideological enemies. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not WP:OR and not a conspiracy theory. It is a criticism of the relationship that the Democratic Party has with African-Americans. You obviously do not agree with that criticism and that's okay, but it has been used in reliable sources. We go by reliable sources (I believe that's a popular saying around here) Besides those in the article, here's a couple more:Chicago Tribune Yahoo News --Rusf10 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I sense a lack of WP:BEFORE. David Swerdlick has this excellent overview of the topic . Multiple books have been written about this topic by notable black conservative men and women. The draft is far from perfect and the issue is controversial, but WP:NOTDICT probably doesn't apply. w umbolo   ^^^  22:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Will never make it to mainspace. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although the proponent insulted me, I am no longer abstaining. Deleting this draft is not housekeeping, but is a real MFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The draft has been declined only twice. Most of the concerns have been resolved, and others can be too by editing. "Housekeeping"?! w umbolo   ^^^  22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice for recreation Topic does probably meet WP:GNG, but this draft is not a good starting point for the article. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Declined 3 times. Housekeeping because this user is not going to be allowed to continue the effort. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep- It's a notable topic backuped up by coverage in reliable sources. It can be edited to fix any concerns. Housekeeping is WP:CSD G6 (also called technical deletion). This isn't speedy deletion and it isn't uncontroversial (if it was there wouldn't be a need for a discussion). Therefore, housekeeping cannot possibly be a reason for deletion. Someone please provide an actual policy reason to delete (and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--Rusf10 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your claim that there have been no policy-based rationales is preposterous. Multiple people have cited WP:OR. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But this has sources. And only two people cited OR. w umbolo   ^^^  22:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to another attempt So far it appears this word is a WP:NEOLOGISM, and so far this article has one-and-only-one RS that talks about the phrase itself. Per WP:NEOLOGISM we only have articles on notable neologisms, as established by quality secondary RSs.   A single RS about a racially and politically charged neologism doesn't really establish the necessary threshold of notability in my mind.  To cover an such an expression would be to lend our help to elevating it in the public eye, and we don't do that, especially for racially and politically charged neologisms.   If neutral editors can establish that there are a number of quality secondary RSs that discuss the phrase itself, rather than just reporting that someone used the phrase, then maybe a neutral article could be started.  But  this POV push to trumpet the phrase in the public eye should be vaporized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: OR on a marginally notable topic (if at all). A non-viable draft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the creator has been indef'd by the community partly for creating drafts like this. I agree it is OR Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closer. Multiple editors have asserted without evidence that there is WP:OR in the draft. These unsubstantiated arguments should be dismissed. w umbolo   ^^^  13:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe experienced editors know OR when they see it? Legacypac (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of Wikivoice instead of inline attribution in Lead Sentence 1 is obvious OR. I wouldn't mind if someone who is now arguing fixed the problems by removing this and any other OR, deleted examples of people using the phrase, and added neutral text based on multiple secondary sources about the phrase.   But although everyone has the opportunity to do this, no one is expressing any interest beyond arguing that it maybe could possibly be done.  Please WP:SOFIXIT or get out of the way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a politically charged phrase, and the article will naturally mention notable people using it, as reported by reliable sources. I don't have the time to fix it at the moment, and I have several other phrase articles that I want to write before this, but I'd be fine with writing a reliably sourced article in the future using some of the currently present sources, among others. w umbolo   ^^^  07:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if you're worried about recreating an article after it was AFD' don't be.... it sounds like you're so busy there will be ample passage of time to reset the good faith clock on this one. But this is an issue about tomorrow and what might happen.  Right now today, THIS article should be nuked.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Written in a sophomoric, non-encyclopedic, InfoWars style. Just rubbish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2019 (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.