Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Camarillo suicide by deputy

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: delete . Intriguing idea! At any rate, as best I can tell none of you particularly want this thing around, so delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Camarillo suicide by deputy[edit]

BLP vio against a recently deceased individual. WP:NOTNEWS as well. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the BLP violation? A WP:VAGUEWAVE. Deceased people are not living. Probably useless, but bringing to MfD makes it a bigger waste of time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deceased person is covered by BLP as is the officer. Says the deceased stole a phone, used knife etc. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, people keep trying to write the recently dead into the policy. It just diminishes the credibility. As for the details, see Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". There is no violation on the page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, per WP:BDP, BLP 100% applies to the recently dead. Language to that effect has been in the page since at least 2010, so it's hardly something that people "keep trying" to write in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, OK eight years. I remember it being unstable. Anyway, even at the long end of the WP:BDP wording, 2015 is not recent, and I still dispute the word "violation", mentioning a sourced [1] allegation is not a violation, unless it is a matter of tone or wording in which case it can be fixed. Also, as it is still in the news in 2017 [2], NOTNEWS doesn't hold. There are many accident/crime stories, some don't meet the GNG, some can be merged, some can be fleshed into quality articles. I don't think that these drafts should be tested at MfD, and I think allegations of BLP violations should be accurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough that it's a couple months on the outside of BDP. I do still think it's a clear failure of WP:NOTNEWS. It may still be being followed up on by the local news, because that's what local news places do. But there's no outside coverage that shows it's becoming a topic of long-lasting widespread interest. At this stage, it's just run of the mill crime reporting that doesn't have any particular significance.

Now that I'm on a roll though: I think drafts like these are a great argument for a separate Drafts for Discussion, honestly. There are drafts that are just fully unsuitable for being worked on here, and it's preposterous to waste reviewers' time with them. It would be far better to have a venue where we could debate that, with appropriate guidelines in place to make sure we're not just nuking everything that looks faintly not notable.

Actually, radical thought, and maybe I'm just overtired, but I wonder if a process like that could eventually be a replacement for AfC? Submit a draft to DfD and it becomes visible on a noticeboard-style page like AfD. It gets looked at by an audience whom the author can engage in actual human discussion with and perhaps learn something from, as opposed to getting slapped with horrible red jargon templates that make no sense to most humans. The board might attract a wider audience of people scrolling down the page who might improve the draft during the process, which is better than the fairly random process we have right now. Higher visibility would also help reduce bad/sketchy accepts, which means fewer crappy articles in mainspace and fewer AfDs down the line. At the end of the discussion, the draft would get mainspaced, postponed in draftspace for improvement, merged/redirected, or deleted. The postponement could have conditions like "no sooner than 1 week" or something to prevent tendentious resubmissions.

I don't know, maybe it's terrible. But I think it would be better than AfC as it currently stands. Although you and I are agreed that most things short of a kick in the teeth are better than AfC as it currently stands (note to AfC reviewers: not because I think your efforts are bad or you as people are bad editors, but because I think the system you're working within is not helpful to you, the drafters, and the encyclopedia in general). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a crazy idea that MfD can't consider notability or suitability - like all the Admins and experienced editors and Afc reviewers that spend time here all forget everything they know about Wikipedia when they enter MfD. I'd venture that the MfD regulars understand notability and general inclusion criteria better than the average editor that wanders in and out of AfD because some page they stubbled on was nominated for deletion. I like PMC's idea but rather than creating a whole new system or board, just do it here. It fits with the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC#Three_strike_rule. If we had some interesting maybe notable pages instead of just the slam dunk delete pages to discuss perhaps we would get better participation. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2018 (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.