Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William Crockford

 __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 02:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:William Crockford


Draft from November 2015 for a non-notable musician. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's nothing for convincing notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotion. No independent references, promotional links (old, now broken at that), young musician, = promotion verging WP:CSD.  Ricky81682, User:SwisterTwister, why this obstinate refusal to accept community consensus that "notability" (the standalone article guideline) doesn't apply to draftspace (Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_58), in cases like this where there is an obviously applicable non-controversial WP:DEL in the policy WP:NOTPROMOTION.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the notability guidelines apply. I'm arguing that this is a draft from months ago about something that isn't notable. The RFC did indicate support for the possible inverse: that a draft that is not notable can be part of a reason for deletion but being not notable is not sufficient to being a reason to delete. Would WP:WEBHOST be an argument or some variation of that? It's the lack of evidence that it will ever be notable in contrast to something like say Draft:David Finkelstein (politician) or Draft:Alpha (film) where suggesting deletion is likely inappropriate. I don't think it's purely promotional as it looks with the infobox more like a draft than purely promotional. Otherwise I'd G11 tag it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am just exhibiting mild frustration that you repeatedly fail to state explicitly straightforward reasons for deletion, reasons that I am sure are in you mind, specifically the explicit capital P Policy reasons WP:PROMOTION and/or WP:WEBHOST, and instead mention only obliquely the non-policy notability issue, and I guess, the "old" issue. RfCs are affirmed the obvious, that notability and age are not per se reasons for deletion of drafts.
 * Of course, in judging NOTPROMOTION and NOTWEBHOST, the possibility of notability becomes an issue to escape these policy lines, but the WP:NOT policy lines belong upfront.
 * This is a little bit about ease for me in reviewing MfD nominations, wanting to have a well-argued deletion reason, but it is also about the author who will come back some random time later. It is extremely bad if the logs point them to a discussion that shows a consensus to delete per an invalid reason while failing to direct them to the page they need to read, WP:NOT.
 * I'm note sure that the is quite G11-able, but I wouldn't object. If it is not quite G11, please be explicit with the policy based reason (almost always some WP:NOT issue).  I would make me much happier.  I am very happy to be able to run down the nominations and repeatedly !vote "delete per nom", but some diligence is required because not all nominations are appropriate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 22 August 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.