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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Alannah Yip[edit]

Draft:Alannah Yip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this seems to be intended as a personal website, and there's no reason for it to wait 6 months. The sooner we remove non-encyclopedic content the better. (there is also of course the possibility that this was written by a friend, and then there's a problem with not knowing to what extent it may be a privacy violation,) DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotion, and the set of entirely unsuitable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I don't really like rag-picking in draft space to find trash to say that it needs deleting. I would be neutral except for the possibility that there may be a privacy/BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we have different approaches, & there's nothing wrong with that, but why do you think "rag-picking in draft space" is wrong, or is it just that you prefer something else? I find it goes very quickly indeed, and helps the feeling that there is an overwhelming workload. And even if you personally don't want to do it, what should you be reluctant to delete if I do the work? Every draft submission that is about a person is a possible BLP problem, unless there;'s actually some reference. We don't want to delete all unreferenced drafts, because people may need a time to add to them and show the importance, but why shouldn't we delete the ones that are hopeless? DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "rag-picking in draft space" is wrong because it is a misuse of resources, if it means bringing shiploads of worthless WP:AfC product to MfD. Is DGG rag-picking? I think no, I think DGG is exploring, testing consensus, possibly with a view to developing a CSD criterion for these things. DGG is not just any any editor trying to show process awareness by feeding busywork into the processes, as sometimes happens here. I am watching DGG’s nominations with interest, in agreement that there should be a better way to do these things, but there is a shortage of good ideas on the table. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am trying to develop a consensus. I need to test and think, and I want to encourage people to test and think also. I agree with SmokeyJoe that I shouldn't do this by overloading the process, so I'm bringing only a very few ones here, often when a speedy nomination of mine was declined. As from my first year here, I try to simultaneously optimize for keeping & improving potential articles, and rapidly removing hopeless junk; between assisting new editors who don't know what do to, and removing the ones who intend to evade or defy our basic rules. So I'd encourage people to comment on the particular qualities of what I bring here. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until this WT:CSD discussion, I would have tagged Draft:Alannah Yip WP:CSD#G11, as it is promotional, has a preponderance of unsuitable sources (not independent, not reliable, not suitable for basing Wikipedia content) that the Wikipedia page is actually serving to promote, and there is no material in it based on suitable sources. While I argued that G11 was always for blatant promotion, it has apparently come to be accepted that it is only for blatantly POV promotion, that G11 is blind to native advertising. I think this is absurd. All modern promotion is tending to native advertising, informationals, concealed product placement. If G11 does not include this, then a new criterion is needed. Previous pushes for A11 and A7 to apply in draftspace were defeated with statements that people are under-using G11. We now have something to talk about. This crosses into WP:UPE, undeclared paid editing, for which the community cannot agree that it is a reason for deletion, see here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article looks empty at the moment, just a bunch of section headers. Has not been submitted. Does this person have a chance of meeting sports notability for her field? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 23 March 2020 (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.