Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zayd Dada

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Zayd Dada


another nonencyclopedic draft. It is a disservice to contributors to let them keep trying on something like this.  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. DGG, these sorts of pages have long been telling me that AfC is a mechanism to attract potential good editors, misdirect them into thinking they can add non-serious stuff, and then for consuming volunteer resources.  On further investigation, I have concluded that AfC is by along way a net negative to Wikipedia.  A few good things come out of it, but more potential editors get poor information, a poor reception, and existing volunteers are wasting their time wasting the time of more newcomers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to User:Eipeidwep without a redirect. VQuakr (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Loooking at what is being submitted,I think we are seeing some unfortunate aspects of ACTRIAL. We have suceedied in moving the junk from New Pages to AfC. At NPP, we had good speedy criteria for removing material like this; we probably need to develop them for AfC also. There are blank submission that stay blank, attempts at creating an article for something absurdly unlikely, drats that are unreferenced and remain unreferenced  unreferenced . foreign language articles, material that might be suitable on a userp age but not an article, and so forth. About 1/4 of the current submission seem to fall these types of material.  There are  ways of coping with this One is to send them to MfD, like here; another is to stretch the definition of the G speedy categories; a third is to redefine or extend some of the G categories so they extend to  all pages, or to draft space as well as mainspace; the fourth is to develop some new criteria.
 * Some of this should be easy-- I am about to propose that db-foreign applies to drafts also. (this will require either a special note, or a new group that would take some programming, either drafts: or drafts+articles)
 * A3 could be extended and replace the decline-empty criterion altogether, except that it might be advisable to give some warning.
 * anything else wouldtake some consideration how to word it without being over-inclusive  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ’’’Delete’’’ per DGG. There is a post ACTRIAL uptick in AfC - much smaller than the reduction in mainspace crap - and we need to deal with it. AfC is falling farther and farther behind. There are hundreds of blank Draft pages stacked up in just the last month or so. At least we can delete those G2. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the ACTRIAL hypothesis is upheld, it can be extended to DraftSpace. The logic is exactly the same. Newcomers should learn how to improve content before creating new content on supposedly missing topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 7 November 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.