Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:How ICT has an effect on Society

 __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) 01:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:How ICT has an effect on Society


This is 100% an essay and has no chance of going to the mainspace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets go through the community scrap heap, bring the silliest of it to the town meeting, and talk about it one by one. You like setting busywork.  I think Pkbwcgs should be asked to add all possibly applicable maintenance tags to drafts like this before asking for the review.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete another good reason to extend U5 to Draft space Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Arguably User:Bkissin should have rejected the submission, not merely declined. Merely declined drafts should not be sent to mfd.  if they have no chance, they should be rejected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The creator had had their AFC submission declined and has been invited to resubmit. Unless there has been copyright abuse, etc., they should be given a chance to do so. Thincat (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOTESSAY before saying that this should be kept. This looks like a school assignment written in the draftspace rather than an article. The draft should have been completely rejected rather than just declined like SmokeyJoe said. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting rejection would have been wrong. But the draft was not rejected and the author was invited to resubmit. The solution is to improve the intellectual rigor at AFC review. not to delete drafts when there is a difference of opinion between AFC reviewers. Thincat (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per SmokeyJoe and Thincat. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can withdraw this if wants to improve this draft. Otherwise, this essay has zero chance of going into the mainspace and should not be resubmitted in the same state again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless a draft is being tendentiously resubmitted, meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or is otherwise seriously problematic, the community generally prefers to let G13 clean up things like this rather than discussing them here. That is part of the reason that criterion was established, i.e. to lighten the workload here. Thus, the community often keeps pages such as this to discourage further nominations in the same vein. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A bit of pragmatism is in order here. Had I come across this untagged I'd have unapologetically IAR deleted it myself. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and this has absolutely no chance of ever becoming an article. This sort of dogmatic adherence to vague principles is how AfC and Draftspace got so badly shat up that the community—that is, the people outside the walled garden AfC had become who finally realized what was going on there—rightly formulated G13 to deal with the fucking ridiculous 50K+ morass of of mostly-useless, often-harmful AfC submissions and drafts. This has no business on Wikipedia in any form, and the creator can show genuine interest in writing an actual article by starting over; nothing here is remotely suitable for an article. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank-you User:The Blade of the Northern Lights please spend more time at MfD amd share these kinds of spot on comments more often. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, I strongly object to your notion that this page is IAR speediable. Process is important, to some degree. The AfC reviewer of the page indicated that the page is improveable. If that reviewer is wrong, it requires a discussion, not a heavy handed admin.  I think the reviewer was wrong, the submission should have been “rejected”, but the page is harmless-worthless and is best left to the standard G13 process. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - In addition to Wikipedia is not for essays, this lacks context in that it doesn't say what ICT is. We don't need to retain crud just because the reviewer was nice and chose to decline (or didn't have the Reject button yet).  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - And I still don't know what ICT is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Me same. I am half expecting one of two possible surprise revelations: (1) ITC is some obscene joke and we are being trolled; or (2) ITC is something important and scholarly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some possibilities at https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ITC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral Could be worked into an article possibly, but drafts that couldn't ever work in mainspace should be expediently deleted rather than waiting for G13. PrussianOwl (talk) 21:52, 15 November 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.