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.
Bringing it to MfD was a waste of time. People who bring things to mfd contrary to standard process should not be rewarded but rebuffed. An AfC decline should sit as is for the author(s) to read the feedback at their leisure, with the implication that the problems can possibly be fixed. If the draft is without hope, it should be rejected, and again left as is for the author(s) to read the feedback. For six months.
Only bring drafts to MfD if they fail some line item at
WP:NOT, or if it is being tendentiously resubmitted, or if it is resubmitted after rejection. The process works. Creating a volunteer-expensive MfD discussion for drafts that fail Wikipedia-notability would swamp MfD with
busywork.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This was indeed a terrible nomination for MfD and a waste of time, however once it's here and the discussion is open the page should be judged by its merits (or lack thereof). Wikipedia has no concept of reward or punishment or win or loss as it's not a
battleground; a nom like this should see the nominator being given a friendly notice. Finally, this probably could have been speedily kept under
WP:SKCRIT #3 as soon as it was nominated.
Uhai (
talk)
04:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree that it is better to do any G13 deletion via MfD than to let it be G13 deleted later by the standard process. A large part of the point of the G13 process was to stop useless junk coming through MfD. The standard process is only a standard process if it is respected for being the standard process. If someone doesn’t understand the standard process, letting them see how it works fixes their problem, and anything else fixes nothing. The six month timespan was quite arbitrary, it doesn’t matter if it becomes 12 or 18 months for some cases. The main motivation for G13 was the concern over BLP and copyright violations persisting forever as drafts, there is no suggesting of these concerns for this page. As the deletion of this page has no importances, there is nothing better about deleting it now.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Bringing it to MfD was a waste of time. People who bring things to mfd contrary to standard process should not be rewarded but rebuffed. An AfC decline should sit as is for the author(s) to read the feedback at their leisure, with the implication that the problems can possibly be fixed. If the draft is without hope, it should be rejected, and again left as is for the author(s) to read the feedback. For six months.
Only bring drafts to MfD if they fail some line item at
WP:NOT, or if it is being tendentiously resubmitted, or if it is resubmitted after rejection. The process works. Creating a volunteer-expensive MfD discussion for drafts that fail Wikipedia-notability would swamp MfD with
busywork.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This was indeed a terrible nomination for MfD and a waste of time, however once it's here and the discussion is open the page should be judged by its merits (or lack thereof). Wikipedia has no concept of reward or punishment or win or loss as it's not a
battleground; a nom like this should see the nominator being given a friendly notice. Finally, this probably could have been speedily kept under
WP:SKCRIT #3 as soon as it was nominated.
Uhai (
talk)
04:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree that it is better to do any G13 deletion via MfD than to let it be G13 deleted later by the standard process. A large part of the point of the G13 process was to stop useless junk coming through MfD. The standard process is only a standard process if it is respected for being the standard process. If someone doesn’t understand the standard process, letting them see how it works fixes their problem, and anything else fixes nothing. The six month timespan was quite arbitrary, it doesn’t matter if it becomes 12 or 18 months for some cases. The main motivation for G13 was the concern over BLP and copyright violations persisting forever as drafts, there is no suggesting of these concerns for this page. As the deletion of this page has no importances, there is nothing better about deleting it now.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
06:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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.