Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joanna Pickering

 __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. AGK &#9632;   20:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Joanna Pickering


Moved to draft with this comment: "Subject requested deletion in OTRS 2017071910019884, and AFD consensus is to delete. AFD has not ended, but due to urgency from subject, moving to draft..." No indication of meet WP:ACTOR; might as well delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The first AfD was in 2009 Articles_for_deletion/Joanna_Pickering so much could have changed in an up and coming acress's notability. The second AfD was in July 2017 Articles for deletion/Joanna Pickering (2nd nomination) It was short circuited by a discussion with the subject. Very weird situation. Notability is still debatable so I say Delete  Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep on procedural (or manners) concerns. User:Cordless_Larry removed the G13 tag from the otherwise G13-eligible page.  Has he been asked about this?  I think he must be at least asked.  Preferably asked with a wp:ping from Draft_talk:Joanna_Pickering (currently redlinked).  Given the strong run of "delete"s at AfD, and "Subject requested deletion in OTRS 2017071910019884", [User:Cordless_Larry|]] should have a good reason to justify not deleting, but he should certainly be asked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did remove the deletion tag,, but that was because I had just restored the draft, which had been deleted as it hadn't been edited for six months, and the tag was there from when it was originally deleted. I restored it in response to an OTRS request . Cordless Larry (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you a,lowed to say anything about the content of these OTRS requests? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not without the express permission of the correspondent, no. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. After all this time the draft still says that she is principally notable for appearing in a film that still does not have an article. In fact I see no significant editing since this was moved to a draft, not that a Google News search suggests that she has done anything notable since then to add. It could stay like this forever but it doesn't look like anybody will ever do anything with it. If she ever does become notable then I think it would need to be rewritten from scratch around what she eventually does become notable for. This is not being drafted so it is not really a live draft. Let's bin it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's not a live draft? I see it in the queue for submissions. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Maybe I used "live" incorrectly, if there is a special meaning to it in the context of a draft. I was using "live" loosely to mean "being worked on", which this isn't. It got demoted to draft space and then nobody did anything to improve it beyond a bit of very routine cleanup that was mostly done by bots. It looks like it just got resubmitted in pretty much the same state as before, which was utterly pointless as it obviously still had all the deficiencies as before. Maybe it is more of a zombie than anything truly live or dead. Anyway, here is a diff of its current state compared to where it was 15 months ago. The lack of progress is what I am complaining about. I see it as moribund. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:21, 25 October 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.