Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mel Robbins (talk show)

 __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:  no consensus. Regardless of what's the right or wrong way to handle it, this article is clearly not fit for mainspace at the moment. If someone wants to clean it up a bit so that it can at least exist in mainspace for 7 days before it's deleted at AfD, feel free.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong&#8288;—  06:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mel Robbins (talk show)

 * – (View MfD)

Constantly resubmitted with no attempt at improvement. After it was rejected the author tried to move it into mainspace itself, and when the page got draftified it was instantly resubmitted again with no improvement. SK2242 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * user:Praxidicae should be TROUTed for move warring. Use of draftspace is NOT mandatory, and if an author does not want to use draftspace, the answer is AfD. At AfD it would be deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * perhaps you should be trouted for assuming bad faith. I didn’t move war. I was patrolling new pages and saw a poorly sourced dubious article that should be draftified and did it. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is being moved tendentiously, does not establish television notability, and is not about to establish notability:
 * User:Praxidicae is not move warring. They only moved the article once.
 * The editor who is move-warring is Michaelstarwolf9.
 * In view of the history, it would have been even better for User:Praxidicae to AFD the article. As User:SmokeyJoe observes, this was a case of a user who had already decided, against the advice of reviewers, that they were going to get the article into article space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Does User:Michaelstarwolf9 have a conflict of interest?
 * This illustrates the value of clarifying our policies and guidelines on disruptive resubmission.
 * Fellow reviewers: Please do not allow a disruptive submitter to cause us to argue with each other when the real issue is the quality of article space.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Once a new page author has made it clear they don’t want to use AfC or draftspace, New Page Reviewers and others must not force them to.  AfC and draftspace is not mandatory (declared or proven COI excepted).  If the page does not belong in mainspace, and someone puts it back, use WP:AFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainspace and, if desired, send to AfD - If the author believes this is an appropriate topic for the mainspace, it should be given its day in the proper venue. AfC is not mandatory (seems I am echoing SmokeyJoe here) and should not be coercive. This feels like back-dooring/back-rooming discussion of the topic to me. This venue should not be used to circumvent that process and if a draftication ([Draftification] is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion.) is clearly undone and opposed, it should not be forced (perhaps this was not fully realized as the draftications were by two different individuals). On a tangent, the subject is mentioned at Mel Robbins. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The only person trying to circumvent any process here is the author, who has ignored several declines and rejections and refuses to communicate or improve their draft. We should not be rewarding them by sending their crappy draft to mainspace, and even if it does go there AfD will hopefully kill it. It's a waste of everyones time to try and force it into mainspace just for it to die. SK2242 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, AfC is merely voluntary. One does not have to use it if they do not desire to. Morever, WP:DRAFTIFY (again): the aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace, i.e. incubation and not to set it up for prompt or eventual deletion. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been no improvement here. The draft is the exact same as when it was rightfully kicked out of mainspace the first time. Again there’s no point in sending this to mainspace when we all know it won’t survive for more than a week there. SK2242 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it was improved is irrelevant. It seems we disagree on the nature of draftification, but I believe my view is in agreement with the relevant policies and guidelines (some of which I have linked above). Finally: proper process is important, especially in matters of controversial deletion, so I disagree that my suggested action is pointless. Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Process is important, but it's not a hill to die on. SK2242 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of disputation regarding the deletion of drafts over the past few years, that, my friend, is a matter of perspective. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainspace and AfD. There are many routes towards removing this, we should do what will work best. in practice, AfD is accepted as the more definitive process. Especially a second deletion at AfD. That tends to greatly discourage attempts to re-create. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 1 December 2020 (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.