Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Areo Magazine

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: fricking Keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Areo Magazine

Repeatedly declined draft. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses, we don’t come to mfd for “repeatedly declined draft”, unless it is being resubmitted without improvement. You have only just now REJECTED it for the first time. Wait for the next submission before coming here for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: Who is this "we" you're talking about? Perhaps you're referring to a consensus I'm unaware of? If so, can you link to it? Or is this an unspoken rule that I can safely ignore?
- I've done something similar before without complaint (reject a repeatedly declined draft and nominated it for deletion). The draft was deleted. Unfortunately, the name of the draft escapes me, and it would take an unusual amount of determination to go through my contributions simply to jog my memory. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 07:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) (Fixed formatting at 08:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

ec

I dream of horses, “we” is the nebulous concept of Wikipedians, with respect to how we deal with inept newcomers banging their heads and wasting our time in draftspace. I do think there is an undocumented consensus that we’ve established here in mfd discussions and at WT:AfC to follow a stepwise escalation pathway in response to poor drafts, to (1) DECLINE with encouragement to improve and resubmitted. An RfC, I think linked downstream of WP:DMFD established (2) that tendentious resubmission can/should be responded by MfD nomination. (3) if the draft is definitely hopeless, “improvement” to mainspace-worthy is not possible, then REJECT. (4) If the draft proponent continues after a REJECT, then bring it to MfD.

Here, you REJECTED and then immediately nominated at MfD. Perhaps you consider it an especially egregious REJECTED draft? Or do you think all REJECTED drafts should be discussed for a week at MfD?

I think this draft should be left to be deleted by the WP:G13 process. This gives the author six months to fully consider whether they have encountered an unreasonable reviewer, or whether the topic is simply not suitable. A shorter deadline doesn’t help anyone or any thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not convinced this topic is woefully non-notable. A number of sources are sort of close. I consider it complicated. I advise it’s proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More than three sources of low quality tend to irritate reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not convinced this topic is woefully non-notable. A number of sources are sort of close. I consider it complicated. I advise it’s proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. More than three sources of low quality tend to irritate reviewers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I'll reply on the talk page here. You'll receive a ping when I do. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 08:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - After the draft has already been rejected, it is not necessary to delete it quickly.
- - The ability to Reject a draft was implemented to deal with repeated declines.
  - It is unusual to see something that I declined two years ago that is still being worked on with little improvement. That does not mean to keep it, and that does not mean to delete it. It only means it is unusual to see this.
  - Is there a reason why the author should not have a last chance to discuss before deletion?
  - I have been saying, from time to time, that we need guidelines for further handling of rejected drafts. Maybe further handling of rejected drafts is a third rail.
  - The author has not established that the magazine is notable, after two years. However, the reviewers have not established that the magazine is not notable.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It’s an interesting case, usually with these drafts the author is a new editor almost certainly with a COI and probably a UPE too. In this case it’s an experienced editor who has been on the project far longer than I have, so I don’t doubt good faith. It has been 2 years without the draft being accepted, but I think it borders on notability. Has the nominator done a before check to confirm non-notability? SK2242 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what the fresh heck is this? I submitted a draft for review and in response the reviewer is trying to delete the page? What the actual hell? Since when is this the procedure for drafting of pages, and how on earth does this give editors the confidence to use the drafting process? I am literally aghast. (Yeh this drafting is taking a long time. You know, not all of us have 3 hours every flipping night to spend on this site - those of us with multiple jobs and families and kids get to eek out 5-10 minutes every month or so when there is silence in the house. And I just wasted December's 10 minutes writing this fricking comment). Oh, and KEEP Fig (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2020 (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.