Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ian Parker (singer-songwriter)

 __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. Well intentioned nomination of Draft:Ian Parker (singer-songwriter) by, but consensus was unanimous and, perhaps, describes well the intent behind G13 being to dispose of drafts of single-purpose accounts and casual editors, who made relatively few edits and then left. As noted, though, by other editors, including, many editors besides the creator, who hasn't edited since 2015, are still working on this plausible draft—regardless of how minor, or not, the edits may be. (Side note: Could the editor who forgot to sign their bolded comment please kindly return to sign their comment after this is closed? Also, consider that SineBot welcomes opting back in by experienced editors, to which I've opted in.) (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T · C  21:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ian Parker (singer-songwriter)

 * – (View MfD)

This article has been edited with basically meaningless changes every five months or so since 2017 when it was moved out of the article namespace due to a PROD. It's pretty clear these edits are just being made to circumvent G13 due to the lack of substance and convenient timing. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 09:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep many editors do exactly the same thing such as experienced admin such as and  who don't have time to improve the draft for mainspace. G13 is actually opposed as a process by many editors and there is no harm in keeping potentially notable articles in draftspace such as this one which has some reliable sources coverage such as an AllMusic staff review.Why dont you improve it yourself? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deliberately making edits to circumvent G13 is abusing the process to get around community consensus. The community has decided that it's OK to delete stale drafts after 6 months of no editing. This is just circumventing that by making dummy edits with no significant content. G13 was meant to delete drafts not being worked on and this is an example of a draft that isn't being worked on. I'm probably going to lose on this due to the !votes against me but still. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * is the editor who has been bumping this article every six months since March 2017 when it was moved to draft in response to a PROD. Do you plan to still work on it? If not, it can be deleted without prejudice to recover if someone will really work on it.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I will work on it when I have time but deleting it makes it less likely to be improved by other editors particularly new editors who do not understand WP:Refund. Also, moving drafts to delete space as the nominator is very keen on actually uses more server space and costs Wikipedia more money than leaving them in draftspace accessible to editors who may improve them. Also note there is an ongoing discussion at the csd talk page concerning abolishing G13 alltogether, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not oppose G13, at least not in principle. But I quicly look at every prospective G13 I can that is not athletes or popular culture or popular music to find ones that are not hopeless using Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions . (out of a page listing 200 of them G13s, that usually amounts to 4 or 5. How many time I will keep postponing them depends on what I think are the possibilities. I do not automatically keep renewing. When they show up 6 months later on my user talk from Hasteurbot, I decide usually to keep about 2/3 for another 6 months. My impression is that about half do get edited substantially either by me or someone else. I would love to have a more efficient way of doing it.
 * That said, I have probably kept some too long. I would certainly like some method for finding the most-renewed ones. I consider bringing a particular doubtful one here not inappropriate, to call attention to it. This was in mainspace from 2010 to 2017, was prodded, then deprodded and moved to draft. The practice of draftifying a longstanding inactive article has been questioned, because nobody might be available to work on it. (to some extent a prod ha sthe same problem, but the prodding is more visible & therefore might attract more attention. In this case, draftifying as response to a prod seems a reasonable thing to do.


 * Keep. This is not a field I can judge, but if the editor involved still thinks it has potential,I see no reason to object  DGG ( talk )
 * Keep - I think that this nomination is a good-faith misunderstanding of the purpose of G13, which is among other things intended to allow the keeping of drafts that are being diddled with every few months by active editors. G13 is really meant to dispose of drafts by single-purpose accounts and by casual editors, not by regular editors who diddle with their drafts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe it is where it belongs. Incubating and improving. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2020 (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.