Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aune9532579/Drought relief not enough in Ruacana

 __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 no consensus. However, given (1) the user has made no edits since 5 October to this or to any page, and (2) the problems with the content, I would not expect this to survive a second MfD in this shape. BencherliteTalk 11:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Aune9532579/Drought relief not enough in Ruacana


Editorial unrelated to the encyclopedia. There's a bit of leeway concerning pages in userspace (see User pages) but opinion pieces on matters unrelated to Wikipedia are not acceptable. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, move to a more neutral title, and tag as a draft article. The editor is a newcomer who has only been on Wikipedia for two days, and the draft seems to have been written in good faith as part of School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia. The author is likely not familiar with Wikipedia's neutrality policies, but the subject, droughts in Namibia, is notable. The draft has citations, which indicates that the author is at least trying to meet some of Wikipedia's many policies. The name of the draft should be changed to something more neutral (Drought relief in Namibia, Desertification in Namibia, etc.) and the draft should be cleaned up, but it's reasonable as an early draft, considering that the author is a new user. --SGCM (talk)  23:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a good reason to keep an editorial in user space. This would have to be fundamentally rewritten to be acceptable. This is not to be mean to the user: advertising, copyright violations, opinion pieces, unreferenced BLPs, these are all non-negotiable, even in userspace, even written by newbies. Pichpich (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft articles should not be nominated within one day of creation. Draft articles, especially those by newcomers, should be given a chance to improve, and short term hosting of draft articles is within guidelines as per WP:STALEDRAFT. The article isn't a copyright violation, unreferenced BLP, or obvious spam. The main problem with the article is neutrality and tone, but that can be fixed with a little guidance and friendly advice. The convention on MFD has been to delete drafts once they're abandoned or stale, as per WP:FAKEARTICLE, not on the same day of its creation.--SGCM (talk)  05:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are basically arguing "there is no deadline", so we should give this a chance to become something completely different from what it is now. You could use that argument to argue against deleting anything, since it could always morph into an entirely different thing.  We wouldn't even need a deletion policy. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a deadline. Drafts are usually deleted a month or two after creation, not immediately after they're created. This draft was created on October 5 and nominated for MfD on October 5. WP:USER specifically allows for the short term hosting of draft articles. The draft should be renamed to something that is more neutral, as per NPOV policy.
 * My concern is that this article was created as part of School and university projects, projects meant to teach students how to constructively contribute to an open content website. Nominating a newly created draft article from one of these projects, and scrutinizing its neutrality using the same standards as articles in the mainspace, defeats the entire purpose of having School and university projects.--SGCM (talk)  20:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Open a conversation with the user, start a new neutral version, and then it won't matter if we delete this one. This isn't a viable article with a few POV issues, this is much further from our mission than that. Gigs (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've notified the editor and offered a few words of advice.--SGCM (talk)  19:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete With a POV title like this, there's no chance of being an article. Start over after reading WP:NPOV. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing admin, also delete or blank User:Aune9532579, which is another copy of this. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:UP - User space promotion of viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - page is obviously very unsuitable as it exists, but the evidence is pretty clear that the user is trying to write an article and as a new user just doesn't understand NPOV, and so on. Requires a comprehensive rewrite, yes, but new users have to learn, and a sandbox is exactly where they should be doing that.  Merely deleting it doesn't allow them to learn (and violates the sentiment of WP:BITE).  A new user who is trying to contribute should be given a good amount of latitude to experiment and figure out how to write - having their first attempt nominated for deletion the day they created it is not enough latitude.  Wily D  07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per SGCM and Wily. User should be given a chance to make this publishable. -- Klein zach  14:34, 15 October 2012 (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.