Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop

 __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: procedural close. Per WP:NMFD, drafts are not open for "notability" deletion discussions. If a reviewer isn't sure about the notability of a draft, they should leave it for another reviewer to look at, or start a discussion on its talk page. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Dollop


I'd like to test this AfC submission's topic's notability for mainspace. I think it's on the edge of passing GNG Legacypac (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NMFD. [ Miscellany for deletion is not the place for such "tests". 16:51, June 25, 2017 (UTC) ] — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally unhelpful. Could you at least try and make meaningful contributions? Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Keep" or even "speedy close" are serious replies. As documented at WP:NMFD, MfD is not to be used to test notability.  Testing notability is onerous, and MfD is not equipped for it.  Notability requires examining sources that exist, even "might exist" and is not limited to sources currently listed.  Nearly everything in draftspace could be submitted to a "test for notability".  Feeding them into MfD will swamp MfD with questions out-of-scope of MfD.  MfD is not the current substitute for Notability/Noticeboard, which dies for the reasons I am trying to explain.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy you are welcome to comment below my comment but stop changing you origional post to make mine look out of place. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks notable enough. It needs help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Godsy and SmokeyJoe such tests are inappropriate and out of scope. As per SmokeyJoe, this seems a plausible draft. No valid reason for deletion has been provided, so "when in doubt, don't delete". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:FAKEARTICLE. The Banner talk 23:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it optimized for search engines, The Banner? Newimpartial (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep invalid nomination, and no evidence provided that this draft is being used to violate WP:FAKEARTICLE. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2017 (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.