Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Santa Rosa (steamship)

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Santa Rosa (steamship)


A muddled mix of info and refs about two different ships. Has been tagged as a promising draft, an act that is proposed to permanently keep messes like this in Draftspace. If someone wants to create two good articles out of this please do it within the next week otherwise this page is well past 6 months Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have just made a substantive edit to this page, resetting the six-month clock. I agree that this should be split into two drafts about the two different and apparently unrelated events currently described in this draft, and I will plan to do that, eventually, but probably not until after this MfD closes. But that is no reason for deletion, and this case shows the foolishness of the six-moth rule in the first place. That rule has always allowed any editor to reset the clock by making one or more substantive edits to a draft. Is the nominator now proposing to change that, or bypass it via MfD nominations? I do not think that a good idea. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The page has had no work done on it since June 2011. It was foolishly submitted to AfC where it was rightly rejected as a muddled mess. Then "Promising Draft" was slapped on it to prevent G13 but that editor has shown no interest in the page and given no reason for why it is promising. Good luck on fixing the page up. There may be two topics here but it will take work. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was certainly rightly declined, this is in no way ready for mainspace, and I can't say what the editor who submitted it was thinking -- i haven't checked if it was an experienced editor or not. But in my view there is enough content here that deletion would not be in the best interests of the project, and i see no good reason for such a deletion. WP:PRESERVE sugesats otherwise, in my view, when it says . is no doubt true, but not a good reason to delete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Followup, it was submitted to AfC in this edit by the creator of the page, presumably in an effort to obtain advice and help with it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unless DESiegel makes a ironclad commitment to one of 3 outcomes: Getting this approved and into mainspace, keeping it off the G13 (6 months without substantial change) rail, or nominating for deletion themselves. We have plenty of junk on Draftspace without this.  Compel the keepers to actually do something about it rather than armchair speculate. Hasteur (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will make no such commitment. I will commit to splitting the current draft into 2 separate drafts, each on a separate topic, which is the only reason suggested for deletion. I will do that within 2 months (probably much sooner, but that is all I will commit to) after the MfD closes with a non-delete outcome. I won't even touch it while the MfD is open, as renames and splits during a deletion discussion are very poor practice. I can't possibly commit to getting this approved, as I cannot be sure that either topic will prove notable on further research. On principle I won't nominate a plausible draft for deletion, unless it is discovered to be a copyvio or attack page. That I haven't found sources at some particular time does not prove no one ever will, doubly so for an event long pre-internet, so sources may be in a library somewhere. By do you mean commit to making at least one edit to the draft every 6 months? I won't do that either, I have been known to make no edits at all for more than 6 months at a time, and may do so again. Besides, would yuou want me to make edits just for the sake of making edits? I should think you would object to that, not request it. And  exactly what policy-based reason for deletion are you saying applies here?  is not a valid reason for deletion, and should be discounted entirely by the closer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, please don't refer to me with a plural pronoun. I have my gender preferences set, so you can use the gender-sensitive pronoun templates if you wish (such as He or she), Or you could use "s/he" or "he or she" if you don't choose to check my user page, where it is clear that I identify as male. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I should be clear, I intend to make a serious effort to source the split drafts to the point of getting them ready for mainspace, and I have a pretty good record of successfully sourcing stubs and sub-stubs, such as Super Ball, Great American Lesbian Art Show, 500 Miles High and The Narrative. But life may get in the way, and in any case a deletion discussion should not turn on a commitment beyond a commitment to fix the issue causing a nomination for deletion. Remember, keep is the default outcome, it requires a clear policy-based consensus to delete. I wont be pressured into conceding that I must do anything beyond fix the immediate issue to avoid deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not make demands of other users to do work. Saying "I vote delete unless this user does this" reveals that your vote is disingenuous, as the future actions of users should have no bearing on an AFD discussion. Also "We have a lot of junk on draftspace" is also not a reason. This isn't a paper wiki, there's no need to "clear things out". I vote *Keep as the consensus here seems to suggest the subject is notable. Egaoblai (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I want when the same "extend an infinite amount of AGF to authors" editors keep showing up with mealy mouthed statements and refuse do do anything about it. Either people can find content and finish the draft out or it needs to be deleted until such time that editors can make a concerted effort in actually working on the draft. Thanks for your strategic WP:PERX vote Hasteur (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to be active interest in it now, so G13 applicability isn't an issue for another 6 months regardless of tagging. Hopefully it will be mainspaced by then; it looks close as of this writing. VQuakr (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DESiegel. Also, there is no deadline. If there is useful content in this draft, there is no need to delete (contra Hasteur). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, based on the discussion above and the history. I will note that I was the first decliner, and I would still decline this in its current state, but progress appears to be in progress.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 3 June 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.