Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lex Eisenhardt

 __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. While notability is indeed not a reason for nominating drafts for deletion, resubmitting a draft without addressing concerns raised can be under certain circumstances. However, if one or multiple established editors agree that the draft is sufficiently developed for inclusion, it can and should be moved to mainspace instead per WP:AFCR.

If a page was nominated for deletion at MFD instead, notability might be taken into consideration if and only if there is consensus that the draft has no chance whatsoever to ever become an article and thus keeping the page becomes equal to providing free webhosting, something that was also mentioned by multiple participants at the RFC that is cited at WP:NMFD. In this case, however, there is no such consensus. The only other arguments brought forth in favor of deletion were based on WP:TE more than anything but that's something to sanction editors for, not delete pages over.

On a side note, the consensus here is actually slightly in favor of the subject's notability anyway (not that it matters). Regards SoWhy 11:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lex Eisenhardt


Rejected from AfC 6 times on notability and sourcing grounds. Sending to MfD to see if we should keep or promote it because either it shouldn't be around as Wikipedia is not a webhost, or AfC is not doing it's job and is declining over stuff it shouldn't. Either way, 6 declines is excessive to keep this in draft space, and additional community discussion on what to do with it is needed. I doubt it will ever make it to mainspace, which is why I am sending it to MfD since deletion seems best in these circumstances as even if it did make it to mainspace, I doubt it would survive AfD, but I'm fine with letting others decide if there are better ways to deal with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider this person to weakly pass WP:CSD. The sources on quick review fail either independence or direct coverage.  I see the single author is a WP:SPA geolocating from the same place as the subject.  Advise them to read WP:COI.  As an AfC reviewer, I think I would abandon the limiting templated responses, tag the page "rejected", ensure the blue "resubmit" button is removed, and advise the author to WP:Register, get WP:autoconfirmed mainly by adding mentions of the subject to existing content, and if these mentions stick, create the article in mainspace.  At AfD I would likely !vote "delete".  Sending this to MfD to decide is seeking to get MfD to play the role of WP:N/N, and contradicts the clear community message expressed at the RfC linked from WP:NMFD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The primary concern being we’re not a webhost and that if this content has been declined six times and has next to no chance in mainspace, we shouldn’t be keeping it in a draft form. It should either be deleted or promoted, I say delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if at AfD I lean to "delete", on notability grounds, but as a draft this is flying in the face of multiple RfCs in which the community said that notability is not ground for deletion of drafts. Appeal to WP:NOTWEBHOST?  No, it is fully intended as an article, is not particularly promotional, has many non-promotional references and only one promotional external link, which is acceptable.  Rejected 6 times?  Clearly, AfC don't know how to communicate "rejected" and that's where the fault lies.  "Declined", not very strong word but strong enough I would say, until I encounter at the top of some extensive and very confusing templating: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page".  This encouragementh serves to negate the normal meaning of "decline", the author has just been encouraged to try again, and that's before even getting to the signed comments, signed comments located in a wholely unexpected place.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we ignore the RfC and go ahead and delete it. The fact that the current process clearly doesn’t work is grounds for building local consensus in test cases, not grounds for sticking to a broken process. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that these pages should come to MfD, and disagree that deletion is the way forward. I disagree that IAR is well used to ignore multiple well-participated RfC, that such an action is actually disrespectful and destructive to the community.  Why bother with RfCs?  There is a better way:  Blank the page; add " Rejected ", ensure no encouragement to fix is left behind,  apolgise to the IP, encourage them to WP:Register (done) and learn the ropes by editing existing content.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What said.The RFC was seriously an aberration.And, repeated tendentious submissions is a ground of MFD deletion ~ Winged Blades Godric  13:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Utter anarchist nonsense. The RfC was well advertised, well participated, and unanimous except for one person. If the question was wrong, compose a better question and start an RfC to overturn the old RfCs. Nb. Plural. The logic of not bringing notability questions to MfD is clear. The lesson proving The unworkablility of the idea is WP:N/N. The work outweighs the value of the task. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve decided to change my mind about welcoming MfD nominations for “tendititious resubmissions” in cases where all of the following are true: (1) The topic is plausibly notable: (2) the decline comments are poor, not speaking to real rejection reasons, or just not clear; and (3) the author only did what was advised - edit and press the big blue “submit” button. And then, if (1) remains true, it becomes a behavioural issue not a deletion reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's true that notability is not grounds for deletion in draftspace — we can argue until the cows come home about whether it should be or not, but under existing rules it isn't — but what is valid grounds for deletion is a draft being resubmitted this many times (six rejections plus a seventh pending resubmission) without actually substantively responding to the reasons why it was rejected in the first place. There haven't been any new reliable sources added the entire time, just more primary sources, and when a draft has been resubmitted this many times without improvement it crosses the line into tendentious disruption. The AFC queue is backlogged enough as it is, without being cluttered up further by people who refuse to even hear what they're being told about how to improve their drafts. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons this article has been declined at AFC are somewhat specious. Had the article been written directly in article space, it would not be deleted on notability grounds. The several reviews that appear are independent and confirm notability: Eisenhardt is apparently a recognized proponent of his particular genre of music (Baroque guitar and lute music). Missing dates of birth, lack of citations in the lead, etc. are not reasons that this article would be deleted, but rather causes to improve the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:NMFD is total bunk that no one follows unless they want to complain at MfD. We are experienced editors who can decide and should on notability. Would it help to auto add the search links like at AfD? Also there are quite a few pages in the summit-decline-submit-decline-submit-decline-submit-decline and so on loop that should be addressed User:JJMC89_bot/report/AfC_decline_counts Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying the draft should be deleted because of the multiple submissions? Deleted because the subject is not notable? Kept because the subject is notable? That we should start deleting all drafts that have been submitted multiple times? I just don't know where you're falling with your comment.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've not given an opinion yet on this specific draft yet, but based on the considerred opinions of the various reviewers.. Delete. I believe we should be considering drafts at MfD that have been submitted many times. Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I would have preferred to see this one left alone, in which case it would be up for G13 nirvana in a month (and look up nirvana, which means "blowing out"). It is both true that the subject may be notable after all, but that this page will never be made into an acceptable article by its invisible unregistered proponent.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a simple solution--any of the people who think the article might prove to be suitable can simply accept it, and then we'll go through the ordinary deletion processes for articles, which are more likely to attract the necessary attent., .  DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not accept this draft because at AfD I would vote "delete" due to failing notability. Here at MfD I remind you of multiple RfCs where the community was clear that notability is not a reason for deletion of drafts, and that notability is not for testing at MfD.  Clearly a problem.  I think the answer is more forceful rejects, and movement is happening there.  I do not thing the answer is to ignore the RfCs.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Been repeatedly declined (it's currently under review and we all know the outcome already....), If this was an actual article it'd be AFD'd and then deleted and so I see no reason why it shouldn't be deleted here. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Taking 's advice to heart, I have accepted the article (after cleaning up the citations). I believe this artist is notable based on the extent of reviews of his works in publications significant to his field (early music, lute playing, etc.) Feel free to take to AFD if need be. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted you. Wait until after this closes. At least three longstanding editors want to delete the draft, and the only objections to deletion are mainly process concerns which I don't really consider good reasons. This MfD has already attracted more attention that it would receive at AfD, so the argument for accepting to just file their falls flat. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just took 's advice. Deleting this draft over notability issues would be wrong on two points:
 * We don't delete drafts over notability concerns. That's why we allow drafts in the first place: to give authors a chance to establish the subject's notability over some amount of time.
 * This person is notable, at least within the community of early music aficionados, as noted by extensive reviews of his works within publications in the field. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We do whatever consensus says we do. Consensus seems to be that the current AfC and MfD process is broken for dealing with drafts like this, and that we should delete it. Process wonkery shouldn't stand in our way. You might think it is notable, but you're the only one who has argued for keeping it in mainspace. Deletion at MfD is fine: it is a hopeless draft that has no place on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have frequently when unsure about an afc, accepted it and then brought it to AfD.My normal reaction as an AfC reviewer when someone makes a plausible case but I don;t think its sufficient, is to say "ok I;ll accept it and let it take it;s chances." AfD is the only place at WP for considering questions of actual notability . The criterion for accepting AfC is not whether or not they are notable, but whether or not there is a reasonable chance of acceptance at AfD.  The reason for removing one here is that it's hopeless. But acceptance or deletion here does not take precedence over AfD. AfD is a much wider exposure to the community than any of the other XfD processes, and the specialists in the subject are more likely to see it there. .  Personally, I think notability  at AfD is uncertain, but not hopeless.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * there was a serious attempt at ANi to site ban me for accepting several questionable pages and them to AfD because the claim was that MfD can not in any way consider notability. Of course DGG is much less likely to face that kind of trouble. Legacypac (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I point out there is no rule that something rejected at AfC can not be resubmitted, even to mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except this MfD has received much more attention than most AfDs, so I don't really buy the argument that AfD would give it more exposure. If anything, it would have the chance of lowering the exposure. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Mainspace. An experienced editor in good standing supports mainspacing it. He has this right, and the right to refuse (re)draftification. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC). See Drafts. Neither AfC nor MfD are “broken”. AfC is being refined, MfD is fine, as long at WP:NMFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An experienced editor in good standing supports mainspacing it - An experienced editor in good standing supports deleting it ie Bearcat and Me - Please remember you're no better than any other editor here - We work by consensus not who's the most experienced ..... – Davey 2010 Talk 23:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you can AfD it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be childish and that would be being POINTY on your part ...... The consensus is not a straightforward delete at present so if kept/closed you're more than welcome to move it but for the time being it should remain as is to avoid disrupting the process. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If kept at MfD User:WikiDan61 can later mainspace it. In mainspace it can be AfDed for notability concerns. That’s how this works, always. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I see it also. I emphasize {{U}SmokeyJoe}}'s earlier qualification of "an experienced editor in good standing".  DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, mainspace. This just encapsulates what's wrong with AfC. The subject has written a notable book described as "the first major one on the subject since 1980 to be widely available" and his playing is also praised in this independent review. There are many JSTOR hits which I don't have time to check. Why are we holding this to such high standards before it can even have its day in mainspace? There might well be many more sources if only anyone were motivated to look, which isn't going to happen while it's stuck in Draft limbo. If one of the delete voters here cares to AfD it, then so be it. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:08, 26 March 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.