Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fading puppy syndrome

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator did not want this deleted from the outset and discussion at AfD clearly shows that there's no consensus to delete it. Any further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fading puppy syndrome

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was in mainspace for over a year, since 15 May 2019. It doesn't seem to fit the criteria for moving to draft space, per WP:DRAFTIFY, since it is not a new article. At WP:DRAFTIFY, it says to start a discussion at AfD for objecting to an article being moved to draft space. This is an objection to that move. This is a notable subject, e.g. Fading puppies – reality or myth?, Fading Puppy Syndrome Associated with Toxocara canis Infection, Possible Association of Thymus Dysfunction with Fading Syndromes in Puppies and Kittens DferDaisy (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DferDaisy (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This is not the place to object to moving articles into draftspace. What DRAFTIFY says is "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion," I see nothing about using AfD to contest moving. Further, the article has been moved back into article space. The nom is clearly not proposing deletion, and I don't believe that DGG is either, just that they think it's under sourced. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD, so it's understandable someone would assume an AfD discussion is a requirement. But yes, speedy keep. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected-- never seen it happen but I suppose technically this is the place to discuss it. Regardless, the topic is clearly notable based on the journals linked by DferDaisy and no argument for deletion has been advanced. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is a notable subject. The AfD nomination rationale is not clear: if the nominator believes the subject is notable then WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do not draftify notable subjects - see WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of draft space is to provide a place where an article can be worked on until it's ready for main article space. If an article's topic isn't notable, then, since no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, the article cannot be improved until it's ready for main article space. Therefore, it should be deleted, not draftified.

If, as you say, "We do not draftify notable subjects" and, as I just pointed out, we do not draftify non-notable subjects, then what are all those pages doing in draft space?

Of course we draftify articles on notable subjects. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft space' as I attempted to do. The purpose of draft space as WP:DRAFTIFY says is The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. The reasons they are not ready for mainspace are usually insufficient demonstration of notability from lack of sources, or lack of sufficiently reliable sources, , but sometimes because of promotional content, unencyclopedic writing, or various other reasons. The hope is that they will get improved, moved to mainspace, and not sucessfully challenged there, though the reality is that most never do reach that state and are never moved and thus eventually deleted as stale drafts, whilesome get moved, and are challenged and delted in various processes. Normally this is done for new articles, , and I think the rationale is that it is not usually helpful to expect improvement if the original editor is no longer present to improve it. But there seems to be no rule against doing so.

WP:DRAFTIFY is not WP policy of guideline: it says This is an explanatory supplement to the editing and deletion policy pages. This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Not only in there no policy or guindeline requiring it to be done only for brand-new article. it is explicitly provided for as one of the alternatives to deletion. for (from WP:Deletion policy]] "articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards" This was one year old. I think it wa reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, allow another editor to bring to an appropriate standard then return it to main space, currently the sources are abysmal. Cavalryman (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several academic sources have been added to the article since it was nominated. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic and well-sourced to the scholarship. ——Serial^#

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.