Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Resourcism

 __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. Not a great draft but not impossible to improve. Sources outside the OP do exist so there is a possibility of improvement, however unlikely. No tendentious resubmission, no copyvio. Basically no compelling reason not to let it live until it dies as a G13. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Resourcism


A Neologism that no amount of drafting is going to make into an article. Delete and suggest user seeks WP:ALTERNATIVE outlets. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Finding reliable sources and creating an article on this concept may be possible; Google books results for "Resourcism". As this was created three days before this nomination and only submitted once, the creator certainly deserves a chance to attempt to improve this if they desire. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:20, 22 June 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.