Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Salvatore Carothers

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Salvatore Carothers


Another impossibly non notable individual that we should delete.  DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NMFD. No repeated submissions. It will likely eventually go per G13; if someone someone manages to turn it into an acceptable article, all the better. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. NMFD. A highly participated RfC declared that MfD is not a proper response to notability questions of drafts, and that result has never been challenged, expect by the sole dissenting voice at the RfC.  There is a better obvious solution.  Reject it.  The AfC over-automation needs updating, see []. In the meantime, you can do a manual reject notice.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the conclusion of the afc, but I do not see it as a question of notability. There's no intent to claim notability at all. I see it as deleting an attempt to use WP as a web host. Admittedly it's a pretty trivial attempt.  DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If only the nominator would mention something from WP:NOT ahead of “notability”, it would be so much easier to state “Delete per nom”. The easiest WP:NOT thing to allege is “promotion” followed by “NOTFACEBOOK”.  Please don’t ask MfD reviewers to start by validating on notability.  If notability were important to drafts, they may as well get sent to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "notability" is a multi-meaning term of art in WP. I usually mean by it "sufficiently important for inclusion in WP", but it can also mean the more specific  "will not be deleted by AfD for lack of notability under the current guidelines and interpretations " . We avoid using the term for Speedy criteria, but in essences A7 no claim of significance, means "certainly not notable". What it means for drafts is a little indirect also. Thecriterion for accepting a draft is that it is likely to pass AfD. so notability is involved there. The basic common sense reason for deleting a draft is that it is absolutely certain it will never pass AfD, and the specific reasons given --including those in the AfC, are I thik supplementaty. We can and do delete at AfD for any good reason that convinces people, not just the notability or other guidelines. I have always though MfD analogous, making the appropriate adjustment that thedrafts are not expected to be finished and should less be held to a lesser standard.  The RfC was an attempt to add a specific reason for clarity, & I supported it so we'd have a minimum floor. This nomination, like some other nomination by various people, is an attempt to establish the practical meaning. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For any draft that is on a topic inherently never going to be an article, and also not mergeable, I am suggesting you replace the AfC taggery with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC reject notability/sandbox0. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation, I am asking that this option become a standard option for reviewers.  If no one disagrees, it will be deleted in 6 months via WP:CSD.  If someone disagrees, they can remove the reject template, and/or the question can come to MfD.  There are far too many hopelessly non-notable drafts for them all to come to MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly we want to streamline the templates and use an increasingly strong one when necessary (I sometimes modify them after being placed by saying something like "Please do not submit again unless..."  in bold, and changing the background color to something distinctive.)  We also do need a general "not suitable for WP", and the one you suggest first seems very good for the purpose. But I see no reason why we should let obviously hopeless junk sit around for 6 months where it will continue to gratify the contributor,  We could perfectly well have 20 or even 50   MfDs a day if we needed to, which would keep up with the submissions. . The virtue of MfD is that it's a community decision about whether it really is hopeless.   DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG, your idea of increasing strong is pretty lukewarm. "Please do no submit again" is readable as "but feel free to do so if you really want".  As said at WT:AfC, the suitable strong result is "No".
 * "reason why we should let obviously hopeless junk sit around for 6 months"? The reason is the cost of runnning MfD discussions.  It is not viable for every such submission.
 * "where it will continue to gratify the contributor". Not if it has a "rejected" message on top.
 * Go back two years when one or two people were attempting that 20-50 nominations per day of hopeless drafts. Most were getting to the bottom without comments.  Then the deletionists proposed that unopposed MfD nominations should result in "delete".  Then, MfD is just a slow deletion rubber stamp process.  No.  The virtue of MfD is the few Wikipedians willing to review there, and for it to remain viable, every nomination must be worth their time.
 * For the draft in question, this is all that needs doing, save MfD for when there is something worth asking others to review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would much rather discuss and delete than let things get deleted without notice from others. That's been my position for years, and regardless of whether my balance between deletionism/inclusionism. The point of Draft space is to to remove articles, but to give them a chance to get improved enough to not get removed. That we delete the onesthat can't get improved is a necessary consequence, but it's notthe purpose.  DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That position would extend to thousands of drafts, and is a misuse of MfD, and would destroy MfD as a viable forum. There is no valid reason for deletion to justify bringing it to MfD.  I think this page should be left to be deleted by the G13 pathway, without actively soliciting opinions at any forum, but welcoming anyone who likes to review the old drafts, as long as they do it in 6 months.  If you personally would like another opinion on whether it should be improved for mainspace, there is WP:3O, or WT:AfC if there is a general or systemic issue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as not suitable. Any application of "rules" to keep unsuitable material around beyond the week it takes to MfD is either a sign the "rule" needs changing or that the user applying the rule is applying it wrong. We could easy run far more pages through MfD. It sees a fraction of the pages RFD and AfD handles. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Not suitable" is not a reason for deletion of a draft, but is suitable for straight and plain rejection. I like this template as the method.  You may prefer NSFW, which is good but my newer preference is less wordy.  Either way, it is on a 6 month path for deletion which is appropriate because it is not worth community time to insist on a community mandate for faster deletion.  We may be mistaken, there may be sources to show the subject is notable, it is too much to ask MfD reviewers to do the searches and definitively decide.  If we don't do the searches and definitively decide, it is not appropriate to record a formal deletion community discussion that would lead to WP:CSD applying to any later attempt to draft.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BURO. Fighting to save a draft of nothing is unhelpful. The page is a misguided violation of NOTWEBHOST and people shouldn't waste community time and energy on such nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 29 July 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.