Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Platinum Moon

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The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn. Sole remaining sort of delete seems to support move to mainspace, rendering their !vote moot. Star Mississippi 03:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Platinum Moon[edit]

~~created by a now-blocked user, no reason to wait out the six months~~ DarmaniLink (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted per Special:Diff/1211157741 DarmaniLink (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. no need to delete after edits by other users. Tehonk (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plausibly notable. Was just draftified; draftification and deletion from draftspace is improper procedure. Author being later blocked is not a deletion reason. No reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to edit the article to be ready for mainspace? DarmaniLink (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already improved the draft.

I don’t know whether it has sufficient notability for Wikipedia. It should be left for standard AfC processes. That may mean a G13 soft deletion. There is no case for a MfD hard deletion.

You should not send low quality drafts to MfD without a reason such as a WP:NOT line reason.

You should not try to shadow clerk userblocks by seeking deletion of pages created by later blocked users, unless you are at least an SPI clerk. In this case, the page is not connected to the reason for the block. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not appreciate the accusation that I'm "shadowing" clerk userblocks, and I ask that you please cross that out. I reported the user to UAA and they were blocked per WP:NOTHERE after, then while checking for any further vandalism, found this article that was created with a single sentence, and nominated it as it had no practical chance of becoming an article.

If you would like to do the research, and bring the article up to standard, I'll retract the MfD. Otherwise, there's no sane reason to wait out the six months. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but shadowing, following, user blocks, and then seeking deletion of the user’s userspace or draftspace editing is a precise and accurate description, and is a bad idea, and is unhealthy for the project. If it needs doing, it should be the job of SPI clerks no less. The job would require careful attention to detail, delicacy, and would mostly be a net negative to the project.

Yes, this user was blocked for being NOTHERE. But they weren’t entirely NOTHERE. one or two edits were ok, and this page creation as a good faith attempt to contribute. You are attempting to hide the very little bit of evidence they are did attempt to contribute in good faith.

Actually, I disagree that they were NOTHERE. Altering genres is controversial and problematic, but the newcomer didn’t necessarily know that. The allegation of vandalism looks harsh.

Many good editors began with problematic edits.

it is not ok for you to attempt to give me a deadline.

This page should be kept, per WP:NDRAFT, and because we don’t delete things due to the author getting blocked later. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you casting so many aspersions at me? I'm not trying to give you a deadline, I'm asking if you would like to take it over and edit it from here. If you are, then this has no basis. That's a general question. You could take two years to fully develop this article. And I'm not trying to "hide all evidence of good faith editing", I'm just trying to speed up a process that has no chance of standing.

As I said before, If you want to take the article over, then this MfD has no basis. If you do not, there's no reason to put it through the procedure just for the procedures sake.

Assume good faith, please. I'm trying to be civil, please return the favor. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sundostund, delete per a retraction? Does that mean you retract per nom? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: I shared the nominator's reasoning regarding this draft, and the need for its deletion. Obviously, their retraction have a particular weight, but I am still sticking to the opinion that this draft should be deleted. I see no reason to abruptly close the discussion; just leave it to run its natural 1-week course. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.

Have you looked at the current state of the article? It is now good for mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Well then, in that case move the article to mainspace. And leave this discussion to just expire in a few days, or an uninvolved admin to close it sooner, at their discretion. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this average draft. There's no reason to nominate at MfD. There is no reason not to wait out the six months. There's no reason to wait out the six months. There's no reason for anyting. No one is forcing anyone to look at this page, it's in draftspace, it's a draft, it's marked as a draft, it isn't a part of the encyclopedia, it doesn't represent Wikipedia, it cannot bring the project into disrepute, it doesn't cause harm to living persons, it doesn't create any other ostensible serious concern, it isn't indexed, it isn't linked to from anywhere. Instead of "waiting out" just forget you ever saw it. G13 is about deleting the actually bad content that hasn't been identified and deleted already, and non-bad content is deleted indiscriminately via G13 as well to shrink the corpus of what could potentially need deleting for those more serious reasons. Once you nominate a page in a deletion discussion where everyone can see that it is not something that needs to be deleted, it doesn't matter anymore if it was made by a blocked user or whether G13 could catch it. The greater truth becomes apparent: it's a normal page, an average page, a suitable page for its namespace, for which there is no reason to delete.—Alalch E. 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NDRAFT. And none of the henpecking about making an editor take responsibility for a draft, please. Absolutely there is reason to wait the six months. If the draft gets improved, then we are that much closer a qualifying new article on mainspace which is A Good Thing. If there is no evidence the draft will be improved, then the internal process we have in place will take care of that. In fact, MFDing actually delays that internal process by resetting the six-month countdown clock. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, the nom was retracted. However, Sundostund has still casted a delete vote so we don't necessarily have to close this MfD yet. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All deletes have been retracted (I think), and my original reasoning no longer has any reason to stand. Support a speedy WP:SNOW keep. :) DarmaniLink (talk) 11:23, 2 March 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.