Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Joey Vieira

 __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The result of the discussion was:  Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Joey Vieira

 * – (View MfD)

I created the draft one year ago, but the draft didn't pass because the references failed to prove "significant coverage" of the actor. Therefore, it was speedily deleted per my request. Then the newer draft was created, but it lacked inline citations, and the quality isn't up to scratch. Even when I can add sources, the actor may still be non-notable. I looked up sources, including news articles like this one, but I can see trivial coverage. I did request undeletion of previous revisions when the newer draft was created, but I now lack confidence that even article improvements may help prove notability of the actor. George Ho (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this a WP:REFUND request for prior versions? Did User:Graeme Bartlett fail to undelete enough versions from the history when he undeleted 7 versions for you in December 2020?  This does not appear to be an MfD request for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No (to the first question). George Ho (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * At worst, this is WP:TOOSOON for an actor who has just made a breakthrough into a mainstream role. This is exactly what draftspace is good for. Leave it there for others to pick up interest. Failing that, add to coverage at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1111884/.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even with one mainstream role, the actor still hasn't been proven notable by reliable sources for the article. Furthermore, we must adhere to WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Maybe it can be undeleted when he receives another mainstream role, but I don't know why we must wait for others to improve the draft within six months until either that role or speedy deletion (db-g13). George Ho (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a harsh interpretation from the WP:GNG, that interview articles are never independent of the subject and they do not contribute GNG-style attestation of Wikipedia-notability. Another thing to say is that they are promotional sources, and not in any sense are they critical commentary let alone independent and from a distant perspective. So no, the draft fails WP:N. But this is not a reason to delete from draftspace. This is what draftspace is for. Waiting in draftspace for sources to appear is not contrary to CRYSTALBALL. The draft is an excellent place to list sources as they appear. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * However, if at mainspace, either draft would have been taken to AfD for the same reason that the draft failed (or still fails) WP:N. Of course, it might have been moved back to draft namespace per AFD, but... well, who knows? George Ho (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he currently fails WP:N and would be deleted at AfD. This may well change in the near future.  In the meantime, I think IMDB is the better outlet for user-sourced material on upcoming actors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There does not appear to be any more deleted revisions. So it is no good wishing that there are some great references hidden in deleted content. I would say no need to delete this as there is more than just George Ho that is interested in editing this. Let it die from G13 if editors lose interest, but there is no need to give this the chop now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - The author appears to be arguing with himself. Is he winning or losing?  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2021 (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.