Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability doesn't apply to drafts

 __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:  Redirect. I know nobody asked for that but the sentiment is already stated at Drafts. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability doesn't apply to drafts

 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft of a proposal created by an indef-blocked user in 2014. No activity since then. KMF (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical: It may be kept for several reasons, but I'm leaning on marking as historical for now. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 03:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, because the historical template keeps it in project-space but prevents the inclusionists from abusing it. KMF (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of such abuse? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, there's no such evidence of abuse according to the revision history. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 11:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On MFD, it is abused as an excuse to !vote keep on nominations of promotional drafts that wouldn't stand a chance in mainspace. KMF (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question: where is the evidence of such abuse? would seem to suggest that there isn't any. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * "No activity since then"? There was a post on the talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This page in fact correctly describes the state of our current policies. I plan a new project-space essay on the topic, and will surely link to this now that I know of it. I will also expand this proposal. Deletign proposals because you disagree with them is blatantly improper. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom clearly listed it because it was created by a blocked user, not because they disagreed with it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as it was created before the block, that the user was later blocked is irrelevant, and not a valid reason to delete. But I was referring to the comments of KMF above that this is being "abused" DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete it is very incomplete and therefore misleading. SmokeyJoe's comment on the talk page does not make sense to me anyway. Basically this page is just not worth keeping around as it adds nothing new to the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 14:09, 16 July 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.