Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Splash (LPU)

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 18:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Splash (LPU)

 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 17:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 17:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft article that was created over a brief 1-week period in October 2015, and has not been updated since. Since no AFC template is displayed, it doesn't technically fall under db-afc, but it does appear to be an abandoned draft that serves no useful purpose. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Be patient.  Follow User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment That is a long and convoluted RFC and I'm not sure how it relates here. The RFC is currently closing, so the conclusions have not yet been posted, but it appears that on issue A3 (should drafts be kept indefinitely if it looks like they will never meet GNG) the consensus appears to be no, they should not, which then argues that this draft should be deleted. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that this draft can plausibly be considered WP:GNG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not, not if User:DGG is correct in noting that campus publications never are evidence of Wikipedia-notability of university organisations. Is that documented somewhere? Or should it be?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They are not independent or discriminating. It's like saying that a firm's newsletter documents the notability of an employee club. As with everything in WP:RS, there can be exceptions.  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, there's essentially no chance of notability -- the student organization of a university has its own articles only for a few of the most famous universities, and Lovely Professional University is not in that class. Second, there is almost no useful information in the article. I support keeping any draft where there's a rational chance for an article, and I agree with the statement in the closure of the RfC mentioned above   that "drafts with some potential should be allowed to stay." but that's not the case here. Additionally, an article saying mainly  why the type of organization is important   is generally regarded as promotional and deleted for that reason.  DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 29 May 2016 (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.