Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music

 __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. There is clearly no appetite to delete or otherwise remove this draft. There's some appetite for moving to draftspace (though this was quite strongly opposed by SmokeyJoe) or even mainspace, but both concerns can be resolved outside MfD's scope, as discussed in !vote rationales. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 22:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;


 * Articles for deletion/List of popular songs based on classical music
 * Articles for deletion/List of popular songs based on classical music (2nd nomination)

This is the third nomination for deletion of this material. The second AfD resulted in userfication, but that was 13 years ago. Since then, the user page has been edited hundreds of times by many IPs and various registered users, as if it is a page in mainspace. The third entry at Subpages says that user pages should not hold encyclopedia material indefinitely. After 13 years of activity, the article is still in the same condition with reference to notability. The material fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft Space, which did not exist in its current form in 2007. In draft space, it may still be edited by IPs, and may have references added, and may be submitted for review.  If it were submitted for review in its current condition, I would decline it as lacking references, but would note that it is probably notable.  (In my opinion, it is notable but not referenced.  Other editors may disagree as to notability.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given it's on 'my' space, I'm not going to just give out a vote, but I agree with the above. I never did work on it, for various reasons (laziness, stopped editing WP as much, and simply forgetting about its existence anyway) but I still hold after all these years that such a list IS in fact a valid, worthwhile, notable topic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or move to draftspace. I don't see an issue with IPs constructively editing a userspace draft - they're people too. The draft isn't ready for mainspace yet - but there is no deadline. The topic isn't clearly non-notable, the article is only poorly sourced. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I, too, don't have an issue with various users including IPs coming to Melodia's user page to work together on an article. The work, though, has not resulted in something ready for mainspace. The idea that there is no deadline will be a surprise to those who wrote the guideline at Subpages, expressing the contradicting idea that a page should not be hosted indefinitely in user space. "No deadline" also doesn't work in draftspace, where there is a time limit of about six months. So a move to draftspace will eventually result in deletion if notability is not established. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the meaning of "indefinitely" there - from my perspective, "indefinitely" refers to an article that would never be acceptable in mainspace (such as for something decided at a deletion discussion to be non-notable). I don't think there's any issue with a draft remaining in userspace for one, two, ten years - especially if still under development. As for sourcing, yeah, that's what this draft needs, but I don't think that factors into whether we should keep it or delete it. Sources certainly exist. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Promote to article as-is. All these songs are notable on their own, and this is a notable common aspect. I'd say that's true inherently, but this topic has also inspired a gjillion listicles if the only thing we care about to establish notability is coverage in sources. Hundreds of thousands of interesting articles are awaiting improved referencing; I don't think that's a reason to destroy the work that's already been done. Verification is easy to do just by listening to the two works in question. -- Beland (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Do not move to draftspace. Userfication was explicitly approved at AfD2.  This is not an MfD matter.  If someone want to move it to mainspace, that this on them and is not an MfD matter.   SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2021 (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.