Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vinesauce

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The result of the discussion was: keep (withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vinesauce[edit]

Drafts aren't typically eligible for deletion per WP:NMFD so I can't say I feel very passionately about this MfD, but this one in particular has had its G13 clock reset for the last year through some sparse and minor edits. The only significant edit in the last twelve months was one edit which added a source to it five months ago. My understanding of the "So when is MfD appropriate?" section of Wikipedia:Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity leads me to believe that this nomination could be appropriate. I'm also interested in giving it a fresh start since this mess of a draft has been submitted to AfC over and over again without it ever being substantially improved. I know WP:TNT isn't policy and there's differing views on deletion as a method of cleanup, but I believe this draft is too unsalvageable to fix without replacing nearly every byte of it and that the most productive path forward for it is to delete it without prejudice and start a new one. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The proponents of the draft are tweaking it, and if they can improve it, they should be able to discuss resubmitting it. If anyone wants a fresh start, they can blank the current draft and start over without erasing the history and without giving this a mark as a deleted draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This draft can be heavily edited without necessarily deleting it entirely, and right now I'm working on it. I revived this draft last November because I found multiple sources that covered Vinesauce's videos, content and activities which satisfy WP:WEB, as the nature of their videos had been discussed significantly through a wide array of sources - see the talk page and my reply there. However, at the time I had multiple obligations I had to fulfill which prevented me from officially working on the draft, so I pinged most of the other contributors to revise the draft with new reliable sources. However, besides my edit where I added some of the talk page sources about their Super Mario 64, Active Worlds and Half-Life videos, none of the other editors bothered to properly fix this draft. I was actually in the process of taking matters into my own hands. For a couple weeks now I've been working on a Google Docs draft on my own time to collect as many sources as I can and ensure that the new changes made are entirely productive, rather than haphazardly editing the draft without a concrete plan. I've actually found over ten new sources including ones from Vice, Uproxx, GamesRadar and even a book that goes into detail on the Active Worlds stream as well, alongside more Kotaku sources about their videos. My Google Docs draft is still a work in progress, but I can still append stuff from there into this draft after finishing parts of it. Per Robert McClenon's response, I'll delete most of the unsourced stuff right now including the AfC comments. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above is a request for Speedy Keep without a number and without any of the bases for Speedy Keep. In this case, and too often, "Speedy Keep" simply means, "I don't like this XFD, and want to make a fuss about it." There is no basis here either for a Speedy Keep or for a snow Keep. Editors should avoid saying Speedy Keep to mean "I don't like this XFD". Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I voted Speedy Keep per rationale #3 as I saw it as inaccurate to invoke WP:TNT and WP:NDRAFT, two essays which aren't official policy (which even the OP acknowledged) and shouldn't be used to invoke an MfD, as opposed to merely reediting the draft in a non-tendentious manner, especially when reliable secondary sources have existed that could merely be added with corresponding text. Not to mention, this draft had been edited with improvement as provided by my edits late last year and today, proving that the MfD doesn't automatically apply. I will change my vote to a Keep however in good faith. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also, that edit from November wasn't just merely adding one source; I added five RS to be precise and rewrote parts of the lead. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respectfully, I don't believe rationale #3 applies here. The deletion rationale was not the essays, but the criteria described at WP:NMFD, which is that drafts submitted repeatedly without improvement, as well as drafts that go over six months without substantial improvement (which can arguably include having their "G13 clock" reset with small changes near the end of that 6 month period) can be eligible for deletion. This isn't to say that I feel strongly that this draft was a great candidate for deletion, but rather that I don't agree that it warranted a speedy keep on the basis of it lacking any policy-related rationale, so this discussion was worth having.
    All of that said, I do greatly appreciate the changes that you've made since the start of this MfD. I'm genuinely glad to see how quickly you were able to purge 23 thousand bytes of years-old bad material and start adding new secondary sources. This ended up a good example of WP:UDAC, so I am withdrawing this nomination. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:47, 12 April 2022 (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.