Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sebby Frazer

 __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:  delete. Personally I think I'd side with the neutral voters, but given only one full keep, two weak keeps, and several deletes I think we have a clear consensus to delete. signed,Rosguill talk 21:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Sebby Frazer

 * – (View MfD)

We have no way of knowing whether utterly non-notable unreferenced blps of this sort are not privacy violations. I do not think it advisable to keep them for 6 months.  DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Google search brings nothing about this. Frazer has 23 subscribers; YouTubers with over 10 million do not have a Wikipedia page.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  07:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - It's a draft, and an autobiography. It doesn't need deleting yet.  It would need rejecting if submitted.  We don't always need to delete useless autobios.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think User:DGG is wrong about the scope of WP:CSD. This is well within scope and intent of CSD#G11.  This page exists only to promote the YouTube channel of the title name.  Google it, and you get his channel as top hit.  It's a unique name, chosen for this promotional advantage of easy googling.  There is no content that can be reused in any way for acceptable content, not least because it is unsourced, and there is no reason to think it is close to be being notable and worthy of attempts to reuse.  Therefore, G11, and so tagged.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. Speedy presumes clear agreement by anyone who understands the practices here, so a good faith challenged speedy removes the speedy, no matter how wrong the challenge might be. There are hundreds of my clear speedys that I've had to take to XfD because someone objected. Speedy is the one place at WP where the argument, "I don't think so" is decisive.
 * I did consider G11 for this article, but G11 currently says "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "  That does not mean it can not be deleted as mainly or significantly promotional, whatever the consensus might be to decide where to draw the line,  but it does mean it can't be done by speedy.  I'd love to find a speedy criterion to use for drafts like these, but there's never been consensus on any.  S
 * If we want to change G11 to include promotional intent, we need to consider if promotional intent is intent to tell us about something so we might want to watch it or so we admire the subject, or, at hte very least, so the subject's friends will admire him.   If we define promotional that broadly, we will soon find oursleves with no articles at all  DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:DGG, you appear to be correct with regards to the 3rd sentence of the text of WP:CSD. See WT:Criteria for speedy deletion  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:HOLE, no shot of it ever becoming an article given that there are no news articles about the person. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * News articles aren't the only reliable sources (I see your point though). Glades12 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral to Weak Keep per . Deleting something within a few days of being created seems kind of BITEy to the creating editor. As written, nothing would be lost by deleting. At the same time, it's appropriately in Draft: namespace. I see no compelling arguments to deletion and just wait for six months and speedy delete per WP:CSD. If further editing is done to this article that makes it a clear and unambiguous promotion for a non-notable YouTube "celebrity," then speedy delete per G11. But, as written, it's not there yet. Being in the draft space, Google won't index it, so per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO and good common sense, I think we can appropriately extend WP:CHEAP to apply to a single-sentence stub draft article. Doug Mehus T · C  23:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per my comments on WT:CSD. This does not currently demonstrate notability, it may never do so. But draft space should allow time and opportunity to understand how Wikipedia works, and for the creator and any other interested editor to demonstrate notability by citing proper sources. This is not promotional in any sense we need to be concerned with. If This person is found to be notable, a valid article would still drive some traffic to the person's web presence. That is fine, as long as the article is neutral and serves an informational purpose as well. I would decline a G11 on this in an instant, by the way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for now Highly unlikely to ever become an article but cheap to retain for now, if it's turned into out-and-out promo it can be G11'd if not G13 will eventually take care of this. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even the "keep" votes acknowledge that this draft will never become a viable article, so there is no point in waiting 6 months. Sure, it would be simpler to just let the 6 months pass and then tag it with G13. But now that it is nominated, just complete the process and delete it. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , respectfully, WP:GNG does not have one iota of influence into Draft: namespace. It's a plausible article that was edited recently; there's no reason to be BITEy by deleting it. Just wait for G13; there's no rush, and there's no reason to suggest this is an WP:IAR "delete." Doug Mehus T · C  19:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as we would to any other useless cruft. We should be BITEy here; no real prospective editor would write an article as terrible as this. They are evidently only here to promote themselves (still promotion in effect despite the encyclopedic tone), I believe that we should have a tough stance on this.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  02:27, 28 January 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.