Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Save as Draft

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: keep . SmokeyJoe, if you want to do the move to mainspace go for it; if admin help for the move over redirect is required let me know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Save as Draft

Aside from release confirmation, this draft is full of unsourced speculation (and likely fancruft). There are no legitimate sources outside of album reviews and artist/label commentary discussing the track in much (if any) detail. It therefore is too early for this to have an article or even a draft (no pun intended). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace, add information to Katy_Perry_discography. I really can't see the issue. It is being released, you can listen to it now, it is being discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Save as Draft currently is a redirect to Witness_(Katy_Perry_album) with a trivial history. Delete the redirect, move the draft to the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this draft should be deleted is actually because a mainspace redirect already exists, plus there's a (currently blocked) disruptive user who seems to insist on maintaining inappropriate speculation/fancruft additions who will otherwise likely continue such behavior in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thacker101 (talk · contribs)? I'm not on top of that, but seeing as the song is in the process of being released, (is there an official release coming post pre-release release?), it is time to expand coverage, probably make an article at the redirected title, just like all of her other songs. Given that these things are happening now, we should relax this restraint now. I think the content of the draft is find to build upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that's the user who keeps pulling things out of nowhere. The problem with having a draft now is that the release date is literally the only detail so far that has been credibly confirmed. Not nearly enough solid material to work with at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The audio, the lyrics, reviews, they are all out there. Are we talking about the same thing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, per NSONGS, just commentary on audio and passable mention of lyrics etc are not enough to warrant a separate article. It needs an independent third party notability. Like newspaper or magazines independently discussing the track outside of Witness. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a redirect question, not a deletion question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a redirect already exists, so there's no good reason a draft full of fancruft and unconfirmed suspicions should be kept or moved to mainspace. The valid redirect can be converted instead when enough solid material to work off of is actually available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, it is not "fancruft and unconfirmed suspicions". The better action is to (1) Delete the current redirect at Save as Draft; (2) Move Draft:Save as Draft to Save as Draft; (3) Redirect Save as Draft to Katy Perry discography; (4) Allow reversion of the redirect when allowed per NSONGS, and build on the history of this draft. MfD should not be used for every too-early drafting of a song spinout. There is nothing inherently wrong with the drafting, but serious content should be added directly to Katy Perry discography. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) Surely you jest; it would be much better to delete the bad draft (along with needless bad history) and then convert the good redirect when more solid material is available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are right, or me, your use of "much" is too much exaggeration. It doesn't matter "much". It doesn't matter enough to bring to MfD. If you find fancruft in draftspace, just redirect to the topic in mainspace. Deleting needless history is busywork. OK, delete now that we are here, but please don't bring everything like this to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be too early for an article in mainspace (or it may not). But that is not a valid reason to delete a draft. This is a plausible start for what may eventually become a valid article, and it doesn't have to be ready for mainspace now to be a valid draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Draftspace is the appropriate place for attempting to draft an article. This page was nominated for deletion on the same day it was created. Unless it has extreme problems (most of which are covered by the criteria for speedy deletion), there is no harm in keeping this around for a while. If it develops into content that can be used in the encyclopedia in some way, the encyclopedia is better for it; if not, no harm is done. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 28 June 2017 (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.