Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (people)/draft

 __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 and tag as historical. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability (people)/draft


Old draft of notability guideline - I don't think this should be left lying around in wikipedia-space, people could end up here by mistake esp if someone posts a tricky-link to it. Delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Notability (people). Do not delete Wikipedia policy or guideline drafting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't think it's helpful to leave drafts. We don't do this in real life. We clean up. -- Klein zach  23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tags and Redirects are cleanup, and its not as if these pages are directly linked from the guideline. Deleting evidence of the historic contentiousness means that the surviving/winning version looks like there was less opposition that there actually was.  Given that many people are quick to assume that "old" supports "long standing consensus", this is wrong.  WP:BIO has a very long history of dispute over whether its loose standards, compared to the WP:GNG, have widespread support.  The history is messy and was driven by surprisingly few.  Cleaning up history is a harmful thing to do.  This is why, as a fairly firm rule, we do not delete failed proposals.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Smack a historical tag on it; there's no need to delete this interesting look into Wikipedia's past. Just add something like  to the top.  Theopolisme  ( talk )  00:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * comment SmokeyJoe - this suggests to me that if I go to one of the guidelines right now, create a draft, then change two things - BOOM - it can never be deleted? I recently did exactly that - I've created a copy of a guideline in my userspace. But since it's in my userspace, I can delete it at will. Just because the draft was put in article space it is suddenly holy? Any significant changes can be found in the talk page history and in the edit history. I don't see any evidence that this draft was significant - the changes made were not major, and it was last touched 6 years ago. its cruft. If we saved every draft of every policy we'd never dig ourselves out - people make drafts all the time. The creation/existence of a draft in article space is no reason to save it - I didn't even find ANYTHING linking to this draft of significance. (e.g. there wasn't an extensive talk page thread referencing it). Thus, I'm with the deletionists here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You can always delete you own drafting, speedily per WP:CSD#G7. This draft was no mere random draft. Kevin was very active in attempting to achieve consistency across the notability sub-guidelines. The sub-guidelines that predated WP:N, especially WP:BIO, were a serious challenge to this. Kevin's draft, intended in efforts to substantially rewrite, represent a significant line of thought. That line of thought had mixed immediate results and longstanding implications. Looking back, these drafts are an important part of the record of what happened. These random attempts at partial deletions of records are far worse than leaving it all alone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag historical. No valid reason to delete an obviously major attempt to fix things. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 15:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Just to be clear, this draft had exactly 1 "useful" edit, which was this one . Everything else was just moving it over to draft space, and minor cleanup tagging. The only substantive work was done in that single edit. We have hundreds of edits saved in the history of the notability (people) article, and hundreds of pages of talk page text. Why do we need to save this one random draft? Again, if I took a copy of current guideline, placed it into a 'draft' subspace, made one edit, and then walked away for 6 years, would you also argue to keep it?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If that edit was serious, yes. If was part of a significant wider discussion changing multiple guidelines and the application of Deletion Policy, absolutely and without a doubt. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, then if the content must be saved, let's just redirect, leaving the content intact in the history. Is that acceptable to everyone?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, since it has no useful history that is worthy of preservation. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It has useful history. Kevin was not wrong.  The current version still has serious problems.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2013 (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.