Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Wren Linux

 __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:  speedily deleted. G11 was applied. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Wren Linux

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Combination of advert and autobio that has no chance of making it out of the draft space per Notability. (Found it via .) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NDRAFT. It is unproductive, a net negative contribution, to try to use MfD to curate draftspace.  Use speedy deletion if it applies (I think WP:G11 might apply).  It is not an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Question - Why is this not an unsourced BLP? It looks like a biography, and it looks like a living person.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As below. “Source” does not exclude nonindependent or promotional sources, in BLPPROD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a biography of a living person. It is unsourced. It makes no credible claim to notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:AndyTheGrump, I see one source, https://wrenlinux.com/, in the infobox. Do you not agree that this is a source, one that prevents WP:BLPPROD, were the page an article.  I advocate for “unsourced BLP” to be BLPPROD-able in any namespace, but this assumes agreement of what “unsourced” means. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The draft is 'unsourced' in as much as it cites nothing which could be used to verify any of the content of the draft. Or indeed, verify that the draft (and/or the website) isn't a complete work of fiction. It is content we can't use, cited to a source we can't cite. A useless 'source' is functionally no different from no source at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The website in the inforbox verifies information on the draft. That makes it sourced. Challenging the validity of the website doesn’t change the fact that it is listed as a source. “Usefulness” and “functionality” are subjective qualities that are not useful for objective criteria such as sticky PROD, BLPPROD, which I advocate should be applied to all namespaces including draftspace.  If we can’t agree with what “sourced” means, that this is pretty sad.
 * To the extent that the source is entirely useless for sourcing content for suitable Wikipedia, and the draft is promotion, I argue that this makes it WP:G11 eligible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've requested G11 as I also find the content to be a promotional "profile"/CV-type page that is unsalvageable.—Alalch E. 21:53, 17 September 2023 (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.