Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Experimental Biology meeting

 __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. JohnCD (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Experimental Biology meeting


WP:TOOEARLY, and only one ref.  333-blue  04:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - These are arguments for mainspace deletion, not draft deletion. Drafting articles that are TOOEARLY for mainspace seems like a perfectly legitimate user of draftspace. More refs may be added later - drafts are not at all required to be referenced. And above all, this draft was created two days ago - why you feel compelled to delete an explicit work-in-progress 2 days after work on it begins is beyond me. I want to apologize to for this deletion nomination - it seems completely unfounded to me. A2soup (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair topic, but looking the wrong way. It should include past meeting dates, and not include future meeting dates.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and was participating in an edit-a-thon. We were at the Experimental Biology meeting, which didn't have a page, so I figured I could make that my first article. I was planning on going back and adding more content and cleaning up the page. But willing to defer to the wisdom of others with more experience. Geoffhunt3 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The page is fine as a draft, it doesn't look as if it will be deleted. If you want to get this page into the actual encyclopedia, there are three main things to do. First and foremost, make sure that the Experimental Biology Meeting is notable; in particular, it should meet the general notability guideline. If it doesn't, it unfortunately doesn't merit its own article. Second, the page should be about the meeting itself as it already exists, not a list of future dates per the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. Finally, it would be good to have some independent sources - see more about this at WP:V. Thanks for your contributions and good luck! A2soup (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was actually gonna !vote Delete but seeing as the nom hasn't buggered off it should be kept and thus he could expand and improve it. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As it's clearly a good faith editor who's still here, and the topic may become notable given time. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (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.