Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Maxime Saada

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Maxime Saada


Reviewed 4 times in 1 month and also then commented once by me and the Draft still hasn't changed significantly, let alone what our policies need for an article. SwisterTwister  talk  02:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace. Notable.  Improve by copying from fr:Maxime Saada.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Appears to be a straight copy and paste from French Wiki. Nördic   Nightfury  13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is determined by the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage that can be provided to carry the person over WP:GNG — a person does not get an exemption from having to pass GNG just because the article claims something that sounds notable, if the sourcing present in the article isn't adequately supporting notability. The sourcing present here, however, is not suitable — apart from one blurb in an RS, the referencing here is entirely to primary, unreliable and/or circular sourcing, and the French article does not improve the sourceability at all, as it's based entirely on another primary source and another blurb that just glancingly acknowledges Saada's existence without being about Saada in any substantive way. No prejudice against recreation and/or mainspacing in the future if somebody can source him over GNG properly, but neither this nor the French version is sourced well enough to deem him eligible for a mainspace article as of right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat, the problem with your position is that it is incompatible with the result of Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58. The GNG is not a sufficient reason to delete pages from draftspace.  You don't think it suitable for mainspace, the the point that you think it would AfD-ed and deleted from there?  OK, I won't argue that point, because I am not motivated to defend it at AfD.  However, I maintain that the subject is more than plausible notable, and that notability depends on existing sources, not limited to current sourcing.  You admit to one blurb in a RS.  I see lots of ghits for an important person, I am confident that there is a very good chance that another source exists, and two sources are good enough for many.  MfD does not have the resources to do this sort of test for a fraction of similar pages in draftspace.  This one does not fail WP:NOT, and so there is no reason for deletion. Also note that AfC reviewing is very newcomer-unintuitive.  The pasting of templated messages at the header of the article does not lead to human conversation.  The system is not working.  I am happy to support deletion of hopeless drafting that is repeatedly resubmitted, but this one is not hopeless. You appear to believe that someone would be free to recreate a draft on the subject?  If that is the case, then the draft should be left undeleted.  Deletion would be a net negative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You originally argued that the page should actually be moved to mainspace, on the grounds of "notable because I said so, no evidence necessary", and now you're backtracking to admit that the sourcing present here isn't actually good enough to support that. Hmmmm. That said, firstly, it's true that sources merely have to exist, rather than necessarily always being present in the article as written, for GNG to be considered passed — but what you're missing is that the sources have to be shown to exist, not just assumed or asserted to exist. What I see is a lot of Google hits that glancingly namecheck his existence, and not a lot of Google hits that are about him to the depth necessary to count toward passage of GNG — but we don't keep an article just because of the raw number of text matches that his name happens to hit on Google: we keep an article based on a sufficient number of those sources being about him in a substantive way. If you're able to find a better depth of coverage than I'm finding, then great, but you have to actually show your work and can't just say "there are Google hits, the end".
 * And there's also a point at which, regardless of whether notability is there or not in theory, we have to kibosh the repeated resubmission of an article whose submitter is refusing to actually do what's needed to make it a keepable article — there is a point at which continually resubmitting an article without making the necessary improvements crosses the line into unproductive disruption that cannot continue to be tolerated. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I read yours and Nördic's posts and admit to backtracking. I consider it borderline, and if openly opposed in moving to mainspace, to do so without someone championing it would not be responsible.  I looked, and no I am not finding what is required, but I am not confident that it doesn't exist.   On repeated resubmission, I usually support the reviewers nominations, but for two things: The AfC reviewers have ignored requests to stop the templated-top-of-article attempts at communications, and the subject is more than plausible notable.  On the topic of WP:Disrupion, the answer to disruption is WP:Blocking.  But if this were brought to ANI, my contribution would be to TROUT the poster because no serious attempt has been made to engage the author(s) or to adequately explain the process.  At the same time, I would try to remember to advise the author(s) that if they want to be taken seriously, and would like to see the subject in Wikipedia-mainspace, they should attempt to communicate too, and would be well-advised to WP:Register. But sorry, deletion is not the answer, unless you don't care about a culture of not caring about new editors.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2017 (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.