Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jamie's Trit

 __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. ✗ plicit  12:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Jamie's Trit

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Multiple request to be undeleted by an editor with a COI, and it's never been improved. This page is basically WP:WEBHOST violation. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NDRAFT. —  csc -1 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - If there is a COI, the draft can be tagged for it. This is not a web host violation because it is a plausible draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a plausible draft. It's not being improved. It's being kept as a vanity page. How long do we need to keep this useless thing that will never be an article? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Although it's true that I've not attended to it (death in family etc.) to call this a "vanity page" is insolent drivel. The reason the page didn't "pass muster" is that Wikipedia editors refuse to accept vixra as a cite (although they accept plenty of inferior cites). I know several math PhD's but none has the particular status to approve my arxiv paper for the submitted category. Thanks for reminding me; I may attend to this further.

If it is possible to accept the page with a vixra cite, I will make some minor improvements to the vixra paper; and improve the Wiki page. Such editing would be pointless for now, however, if Wiki governance continues to insist on arxiv cite.

Meanwhile, please calculate the cost of the disk space being "wasted" by this draft and send me a bill. Jamesdowallen (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Arxiv wouldn't be good enough to accept the submission either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? That was the original "rejection" reason, no? Jamesdowallen (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason was that no reliable sources were used. Using an arxiv preprint would also fall short of WP:N, which requires multiple reliable sources for topics to be considered notable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment to User:Jamesdowallen - Either you don't understand the deletion process or you are being sarcastic. Nothing is ever physically deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Headbomb - You have provided some very good arguments for deleting this draft from article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Use of Wikipedia for self-publication is deprecated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Robert: the draft is harmless, or at least not nearly problematic enough to justify spending the time required to take it through MfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:NDRAFT etc. G13 will likely exert its claim on the soul of this eventually, if the subject is not realized. The author might want to read WP:DUD. Also the advice above regarding what can bring a topic into the realm of acceptability and the notions about seem salient. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:20, 27 January 2022 (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.