Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Thomas Clements (writer)

 __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. Actively-worked-on drafts about subjects of questionable notability is what the Draft space is for. The mainspace title is already protected, so any submission will need admin cooperation. Concerns about editor behavior should be taken to a forum for that, not MfD. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas Clements (writer)

 * – (View MfD)

Initiating deletion discussion at request of 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:6D84:311C:79E3:16A8 on my user talk. The rationale provided is "The reasons for deletion are the lack of reliable sources, the author refused to admit to this and give it up on the grounds of his POV push as Clements is a supporter of the medical model of Autism. This is something that the author has done persistently for years (hence my preference - and I'll say this in the voting if permitted - that the article be salted and that the author be blocked for POV pushing)." [I personally am neutral at this time.] Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep  This is way outside of the scope of MfD, and of appropriate reasons to take a draft to MfD. There are very few reasons why any draft should be sent to MfD. As with AfD, the fundamental one has to be on the basis of whether the topic is suitable, not the current state of an article - and especially so for a draft. If a draft is not of mainspace quality, then fix it - that's what Draft: is for.
 * If the nominator wants to sanction an editor, then that's an ANI thing, not MfD.
 * As to whether any draft here is impossibly non-viable as an article on this topic, then that's not a nomination rationale that we have here. Whether Clements is a supporter of a medical model of autism, or if they put it all down to demonic possession and pixies just doesn't matter: are they collecting WP:Notable attention is what matters, not whether we agree with them or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The note about Clements views were against the creator of this article incorporating a POV push. POV pushing is not permitted under any rationale. The reality is - and this is the core of the nomination - is the lack of reliable sources, even after four attempts to have the draft approved. These represent too many attempts to fix and it will never be approved under the present circumstances. So why keep it? Clements will never be notable. He fails WP:AUTHOR which forms part of the reliable source criteria that he is failing. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:20F1:F566:9B6A:EF98 (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Clements is a published author. His books, at least one piece for the Grauniad. So to argue "Delete as no possibility of ever being demonstrably notable", you would have to show that this work will never have sufficient attention paid to it (which is impossible) or at the very least that there is no credible likelihood of such, which isn't easy either.
 * It's much easier to show that his position has had a hostile reception from some quarters. However the more you show that, the more it speaks to notability as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not showing anything. It's up to you and people like you to prove your argument. It's not there at present and never will be because whatever he has published was long enough ago to be a non event. Saying he's a published author is irrelevant. You have to prove he is a notable published author. This deletion discussion is all about the present. I only reference the future because this has been going on for some time and nothing has changed. There is no indication it will change, except in the eyes of the creator of this article (and maybe you) and said creator is already an established biased editor. I have a challenge for you. Improve the draft and prove me wrong. Otherwise my core arguemtn stands as is. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:60D5:A747:91BE:C028 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep There will be more sources in time. Ylevental (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No there won't and stop POV pushing. This is the article author by the way, readers. (Oh and my IP changed - I am the nominator via Espresso) 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:20F1:F566:9B6A:EF98 (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Slow Keep - The unregistered editor has offered a bad good-faith argument for deletion of the draft, and is entitled to waste the time of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The reactions to his Guardian opinion piece post-date two of the AfC rejections. Personally I think Clements is bordering on meeting WP:AUTHOR in the light of those. I'd encourage the draft author to keep plugging away at finding reliable independent sources that discuss Clements' views. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already looked. There aren't any. The majority of the reactions have been exclusively in social media, which all fail WP:RS (examples - blogs). 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:60D5:A747:91BE:C028 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per nomination. Article creator in violation of WP:NPOV as said, determined to press the views on autism through WP that he and the subject of the article hold to. No reliable independent sources to show the subject is a notable author. WP:SOAP applies here but I disagree with the nominator that the creator should be blocked from editing. A topic ban will do, which will prevent him from re-drafting this. Someone else should do it - someone with a truly neutral point of view, and when (or maybe if) reliable independent sources show themselves. Special exception of the normal MfD rules should apply here. 203.27.47.150 (talk) 00:39, 6 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.