Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ellie (pug)

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ellie (pug)


This draft is written like it was meant for WP:WIKIA. No coverage on the dog. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to DanTDM. Consider talking to the newcomers instead of throwing rude templates all over their usertalk pages.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I respectfully disagree about the newcomers. If they are only here for social networking, they have come to the wrong electronic community.  Would be A7 in article space (non-notable animal), and cannot be made non-notable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree back. How many long term good editors came and stayed due to the social aspects of the editing community?  More than none, I am sure.  I dispute your "only".  Of all the millions of youtube fankids, this one is very unusually in bothering to register and make a series productive-looking mainspace edits.  Some people do well after hitting steep learning curves, I see he is now just learning about copyrights.  The dog is non-notable, but surely you well know the notability is not the be-all and end-all of whether something can be added.  Pugs are an important subtopic for the subject (DanTDM), and deserve a mention.  One exiting reference (no.s 20 and 28) are explicitly about the pugs.  Even if there is nothing to merge ("redirect" does not require a merge; the name "Ellie" may be unnecessary to even mention), the inclusion of pugs is reasonable, and not deleting more of the edit history of the newcomer is better for editor retention.  So, "Redirect" is reasonable, and supported by policy (WP:ATD).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not suitable for redirecting, no content to merge, no chance of becoming an article. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No possibly of being notable, nothing to merge, no need to redirect. Templating was fine, polite level 1s that invited discussion. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2018 (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.