Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:John Bourgeois

 __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. But I will consider undeletion if someone who has actual sources wants to restore this and actually work on it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:John Bourgeois


The subject's notability has been in question for a long time (notability template since 2009) and not a single reference has been provided since then. It's been over a year since the article was nominated for deletion and moved to the draftspace as a result. Since the AfD discussion, aside from one IP edit, all subsequent edits have come from a single user who was also a participant in the AfD discussion. The user in question has only made unproductive and inconsequential edits (including changing the notability template date). It's obvious he has an interest in keeping the draft and will continue to make a pointless edit within six months in order to ensure it isn't deleted, but will not contribute any meaningful edits to improve the draft's chances of becoming an article again. I have been an IP address editor on wiki for some time but logged in as a registered user in order to be able to complete this proposed deletion process. Sources to back up notability are severely lacking here and the draft clearly isn't going anywhere. Bregnac (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC) *Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * PS The link to the AfD nomination discussion: Articles for deletion/John Bourgeois --Bregnac (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep he clearly easily passes WP:NACTOR with over a hundred roles including leading theatre roles, additional references may arise later so its worth keeping in draftspace. Your interest in the draft suggests a COI and possible sockpuppet of the AFD nominator  spi started Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not a sockpuppet nor do I have a COI. The fact that I have only made a few edits focused on this MfD should have no bearing on the validity of a page. You on the other hand, clearly intend to preserve the page while having no reasonable justification for doing so. As has been noted previously by multiple users, there is a lack of references to support the subject's notability. An actor doesn't simply pass WP:NACTOR once he has had many roles. He passes it when he has significant roles in multiple notable works and that fact is supported by a number of reliable independent sources. The page has been unsourced since its creation and given the high volume of work and long career, one would think there would have been significant coverage by now, but the fact is there hasn't been. I am all for recreating a draft once references are made available and notability can be established. However, making sneaky pointless edits before the six month expiration period in order to preserve a draft for unjustified personal reasons is simply a form of meager trolling. It should be noted that has a history of making pointless edits for that exact purpose and does not appear to understand what constitutes a productive and substantial edit, as evidenced here. --Bregnac (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with this at all. See WP:NPA, also there are a number of senior admin who also make small inconsequential edits to drafts either in the draft space or in their own userspace to prevent a draft they think has potential and they have not had time to work on from being deleted. Such admin include and, so are you calling them meager trolls as well ? You only seem to be interested in this article, to the extent that you created an account just to delete it so it is very relevant as SPAs are given less weight than other editors in discussions. Also, I have no interest in this actor on any other basis than recognising that he may become notable in the near future if not now, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that I was engaging in a personal attack on you. If it seems like I did, it was not my intention. I have only made what I think is a fair and accurate assessment of your editing activity, which is plainly obvious to any objective observer. I've looked at the contribution history of the users you linked to above and found unproductive small edits to be far and few in between, if any. Certainly not at all the kind of blatantly unproductive edits you have made to the John Bourgeois draft and others. As mentioned, you've been called out on it before. I accept that I might be given less weight in the matter but it doesn't change the reality about the subject. It is not a new page. It has been around since 2006 and there has been plenty of time to assert its notability with references. Nothing has been provided. You have also had plenty of time to do so as well, but have only made unsubstantial edits in order to keep it alive in the hopes that sources will magically appear in the future. In my opinion, it's simply not a valid argument for keeping an old page around. --Bregnac (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles — NACTOR is not passed or failed on the list of roles itself, but on the depth of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be shown about his having of roles. A person can pass NACTOR on just one role if, for example, they got an Oscar, Emmy or Canadian Screen Award nomination for it, and a person can fail NACTOR on a hundred roles if none of them translated into his receiving reliable source coverage in media. And we don't keep draftspace pages forever just because suitable references might emerge in the future — it's true that draftspace pages don't have to be as solidly sourced at the outset as real mainspace articles do, but there is still a point at which we delete a draftspace page if it's still not close to being returnable to mainspace. And a page that's been in draftspace for a full year, still without ever having a single new notability-assisting reference added to it at all, has crossed that line. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * One year is not forever, I think we should be more patient on this given his career. Is there anything new on proquest? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We delete stale drafts at six months. There's no valid reason for a still-unreferenced draft to stick around any longer than that. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unedited draftspace drafts, i.e. those not being worked on, are deleted after six months; this draft has been edited. A valid draft may be developed over any period of time, making time limits arbitrary. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If the editing that's happening on it doesn't include the provision of any notability-building reliable sources, and instead the edits that are happening are doing nothing to improve its recreatability as a mainspace article, then there's no valid reason to treat it any differently than a draft that isn't getting worked on at all. It's true that "one year is not forever", but two years from now the argument will be "two years is not forever", and then three, four, five, ten, fifty, one hundred and six hundred years still aren't forever either. So if the standard for deleting or retaining non-compliant content hinged on whether the content had objectively been around "forever" or not, then nothing would ever be deletable at all. Rather, there's a cutoff at which content that still hasn't been improved enough to get promoted to mainspace has to go — and I see no reason why the standard for "articles that remain completely unreferenced after all this time" should be longer than the standard for "articles that have simply been abandoned". Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "The standard for deleting or retaining [drafts is] hinged" on what namespace the content resides in. Active accounts can retain non-AfC userspace drafts until the account ceases activity for a year (and someone happens to notice and decides to invoke WP:STALEDRAFT). Hence, there is no "cutoff at which content that still hasn't been improved enough to get promoted to mainspace has to go" for those familiar with the rules anyhow. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftspace content most certainly does have limits on how long it gets retained before it gets deleted if it's still not in a "returnable to mainspace" state. Draftspace content is not simply retained in perpetuity. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread what I wrote above (I've clarified a bit): Active accounts can retain non-AfC userspace drafts (i.e. G13 does not apply to them) [without a cutoff] … Hence, there is no cutoff … for those familiar with the rules anyhow. Thus, if Atlantic306 or anyone else with an interest in this draft userfied it after this MfD's conclusion (assuming a keep), then they would face no future draft activity deadlines as long as they themself remained active. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Any active, longstanding editor who wishes to retain a draft because they believe sources may become available should be allowed to do so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the policy, fine. But I think at some point, a user who has made it clear that he and only he will continue to make a pointless unnecessary edit before the six month limit just to keep a draft alive because he thinks sources might eventually become available, should be reined in. By all indications, we have no reason to suspect they will be available. The page has been around long enough that if viable sources existed, they would have been used by now. Continuously keeping an unreferenced futile draft alive just for the heck of it seems like a senseless endeavor.--Bregnac (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Any continually active user could userfy the draft and de facto retain it (G13 does not apply to non-afc userspace drafts), which nullifies that argument. That aside, there is no deadline. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NMFD and Atlantic306's initial sentence. Articles for deletion/John Bourgeois looks more like a no consensus than draftify to me. That aside, I would encourage anyone interested in this draft to read WP:DUD and userfy it. Otherwise, G13 may eventually throw this baby out with the bathwater. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a stale draft and former article, not a portal. --Bregnac (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad clicked the wrong MFD, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the future, please strike comments you wish to remove instead of removing them entirely (unless the removal is immediately after you make them). Removing comments can cause confusion and take the context away from comments made by others. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:55, 30 September 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.