Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Roblox Jailbreak

 __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. No sign of agreement over the past 2+ weeks on what standards should be applied when a draft is created for a subject previously deleted at AfD. RL0919 (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Roblox Jailbreak

 * – (View MfD)

While Jailbreak is a popular Roblox game, it doesn't really strike me as notable. Also, repeated use of emoticons is generally not accepted as an article.  One Blue Hat  ❯❯❯ (talk)   22:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What’s wrong with emotions?  E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - This draft doesn't need deleting. As it is, it would be declined due to no references if it were submitted to AFC, but it hasn't been submitted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are new New Page Reviewers tagging new drafts for deletion because they haven't been properly instructed as to the difference between tagging articles and tagging drafts? This appears to be a good-faith misunderstanding about deletion criteria.  (There have been other similar draft nominations.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is just an unsubmitted draft. It doesn't need deleting yet, considering that notability does not apply to drafts. The emoji issue has already been fixed. Glades12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the person who created this draft should be given a chance to improve it.Catfurball (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Jailbreak (Roblox game). Jalen Folf   (talk)  18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Jailbreak (Roblox game). Properly deleted as non-notable.  With this prejudice, WP:THREE should be considered mandatory for re-creation even in draftspace.  The account that created this draft should be WP:BLOCKed forever per WP:DUCK.  AGF is not a suicide pact.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This draft belongs in draft WP:NORUSH. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * delete (weak) - Drafts are for article which have some potential. This one does not seem to address the issues raised in the deletion discussion pointed to above, so it probably does not even pass a Draft's low bar to keep. Being the only edit of the author also looks like an attempt to circumvent deletion, and we should not encourage that. Other than that, I also understand the 'keep's - Nabla (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic may or may not be notable, but the editor should have the chance to attempt to find and cite coverage to establish notability, and thee seems no valid reason to preempt such attempts. Starting a draft is a normal respons to an Afd on the issue of notability, and it should be encouraged, not penalized. We have no way to know what may be found on this topic, and thus judgements that this "can never be notable" are improper and invalid. I would add that WP:THREE is an essay, not policy, and an editor cannot (and should not) be compelled to follow its suggestions. I see no harm, let alone "suicide", from allowing this draft to be worked on. It is not yet submitted so the editor is not even requesting volunteer time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic has been found to not be notable. That was the clear result of the AfD just weeks ago. Has something changed?  Draftspace is not for non-notable topics.  Draftspace is for topics that may or may not be notable, and MfD is not for evaluating draft topic notability, because evaluating topic notability is the job of AfD and only the AfD process is competent to do so.  I think AfD deserves more respect.  A topic deleted for failing notability at AfD should remain deleted including from Draftspace, at least for six months, or until something changes.  DRV may be used if the AfD decision was wrong, or DRV may be skipped if is it clear that the AfD was wrong, or something has changed (eg new sources), but in this case, the AfD decision is to be endorsed, not undermined by MfD.
 * The great thing about WP:THREE is that it forces the editor who doesn’t understand notability to look to the requirements for passing Wikipedia-notability, and to not exhaust AfC reviewers with WP:Reference bombed drafts, they waste everyone’s time, the authors, and the reviewers. WP:THREE SHOULD be mandatory for recently AfD deleted topics.
 * If the topic had any merit, something could be added at Roblox.
 * WP:SOCK-compliant editors do not quickly repost a deleted topic using a single edit account named —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is always appropriate to use a draft to attempt to demonstrate notability in a topic where it has not previously been found. It will rarely work, but sometimes an AfD discussion overlooks something. "Found not to be notable" is not an absolute, it is an opinion, subject to change, particularly in the face of new evidence.
 * Our notability policy explicitly permits notability to be demonstrated by larger numbers of lower quality sources. Insisting on THREE is in violation of that policy.
 * Weren't you one of those arguing (on WT:DRV) that if someone thought a topic was notable after all they should just start a draft, not ask for review at DRV?
 * In any case, AfD often does very poorly are checking source not already in the article. In theory we say that notability is the property of the topic, not the article, but in practice a poor article is all too likely to be deleted, when it could have been improved.
 * What policy says that topics deleted at AfD cannot be tried again in draft? I can't count the times we have told would-be creators "If you think this is notable, write a draft that shows notability." Very well, that means that editors must be allowed to try, and often to fail, because AfD will often get it right. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As to the possibility of scocking, start an SPI or don't mention it, in the absence of evidence this is casting aspersions. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi DES. You wrote: Weren't you one of those arguing (on WT:DRV) that if someone thought a topic was notable after all they should just start a draft, not ask for review at DRV. Probably, however it is presumed that the someone has overcome the reasons for deletion.  In this case, there is no evidence that any editor in good standing thinks the reasons for deletion, upheld at AfD, have been overcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft hasn't been submitted for reveiw yet, either, to the best of my understanding. When and if it is, i would expect those isuses to have been dealt with, or foir the reveiwer to decline. There is no need to presume in advance that they won't be dealt with, or to demand that they be dealt with offline before allowing na draft to be created. If the issues must all be dealt with before any7 recreatiuon, even in drqaft space, is permitted, what is the point of going through draft. If all the issues had already been dealt with, a recreation in main space would be permitted with no review, (unless someone started a new AfD) isn';t that correct? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with allowing a SOCK to recreate a deleted page in the days after a clear AfD decision to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear, . Exactly who are you alleging to be a sockpuppet, that is, a person abusively using multiple accounts, and more importantly on what evidence? I remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Duckforever. Not evidence, just indicators. The username. The editing pattern, recreating a page just after it is deleted. Per WP:DUCK. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Jailbreak (Roblox game). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:40, 27 December 2019 (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.