Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:He

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: no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:He[edit]

Non-notable fictional character that appears on a YouTube channel only. Fails WP:GNG. A quick search returns only fandoms and YouTube videos. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. Notability is not considered for draftspace. The draft has been declined. Leave it for standard AfC processing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a draft. Please read about draftspace before nominating drafts for deletion for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW draft, waste of time. It wasn't far from G13 prior to this nom so might as well delete it now. Uhai (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Keep per the above keeps.—Alalch E. 17:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that this MfD was a waste of time, but it's better to delete the page one month early as a result than 5 months late. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:03, 6 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.