Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:George Douglas (television personality)

 __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. ✗ plicit  23:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:George Douglas (television personality)

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is a rejected draft. It has been authored by more than one editor and is not eligible for db-author speedy deletion. Both major authors no longer want the draft (See this) and would prefer it be deleted. Whpq (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It could be allow to just die on the vine in its time. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And if this were the usual case of an abandoned draft, that's exactly how I would have treated it, but this is not such a case. If the main authors want to have a rejected draft deleted, I see no point in forcing them to wait 6 months to have it happen.  Taking a draft to MFD for deletion is for unusual cases, and this is an unusual case. -- Whpq (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is pointless when it could just be deleted now. Wikapedi123 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sometimes we delete a page that almost qualifies for a criterion for speedy deletion, such as a draft for which G11 was declined because it wasn't purely promotional, or a non-obvious hoax that is almost G3. This is almost G7, and is consistent with the purpose of G7.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't like such deletions especially when drafts are concerned, because they follow nominations that need not have been made. I don't believe in a "spirit of CSD" in this sense, and MfD shouldn't be a CSD-extender.—Alalch E. 20:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ‘’Spirit of CSD’’… just think logically. If the article has been rejected because it’s not right for Wikipedia then it just needs to be deleted right now Wikapedi123 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This article can be deleted. It’s rejection reason is that the subject did not meet notability guidelines WP:DEL-REASON Wikapedi123 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR delete rejected draft BLP in absence of a clear and cogent WP:DEL-REASON* as a courtesy to the (ostensibly-disruptive-but-not-quite-so-disruptive) users.*I think the language of G7 allows for deleting a page by multiple authors when those sole authors all request G7 simultaneously, but that's not the case here. When a CSD doesn't apply, and there's no other reason to delete, there's no reason to delete. There's no half-way CSD.—Alalch E. 20:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This article can be deleted. It’s rejection reason is that the subject did not meet notability guidelines WP:DEL-REASON Wikapedi123 (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No,No, User:Wikapedi123 - The lack of notability of a draft is not a reason to delete the draft. If it were, editors would not be able to finish and submit drafts when  they are either looking for evidence of notability or waiting for the subject to achieve notability.  It is inherent in the nature of drafts that they are not deleted for lack of notability.  Notice that I am agreeing with you on deleting this draft, but sometimes there are reasons for details of rules, and you are just mistaken in your logic.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am truly gobsmacked by how complicated you all make such simple things. You are not robots, stop with all the talking in code and start to use human logical thought. An article has been created and you have said it’s not right for Wikipedia. If you want to keep it then publish it. If not then for goodness sake just take it down! Wikapedi123 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftspace is Noindexed, meaning stuff in it is only found by Wikipedians. It is not part of Wikipedia proper. Things there get autodeleted under WP:G13. It is not normal that things in draftspace should be discussed here at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree with User:SmokeyJoe on one point. It is normal that things in draftspace are discussed here at MFD.  This is where deletion of drafts is discussed.  If you mean that we use a different set of rules for drafts, I agree.  If you mean that a lot of the deletion requests that we see here for drafts are not normal because the nominators are in good faith mistaken about drafts, I agree.  But discussion of drafts is something that we normally do here at MFD, including Keeping when the deletion reason was a good-faith error,.   Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * “It is not normal that things in draftspace should be discussed here at MfD”. What I meant by that is that for things in draftspace, only a very small proportion will come to MfD. Draftspace is managed by WP:AfC and their processes.
 * Also, things in draftspace are not “article”s, sorry about that jargon, but it is real world jargon, a draft is not an article. Also, something in draftspace is not considered “published”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 09:17, 25 October 2023 (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.