Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Greenwich Music School

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Greenwich Music School[edit]

Newly founded music school submitted to AfC. Nothing notable here. Would be A7'd immediately if accepted, no reason to keep a draft hanging around for 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep draft was only created yesterday, I suggest we give the creator a chance to demonstrate notability before giving it up as a lost cause. Hut 8.5 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So let them waste their time and reviewer time trying to prove notability on a new music school, that is just like thousands of others in towns everywhere? Submission to AfC is a request to mainspace it and a representation it is ready for mainspace. If kept I will move it to mainspace for NPR to deal with, then I will put on my NPR hat and immediately seek speedy deletion. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with a newbie with no prior editing history, they almost certainly weren't aware of the notability guidelines when they wrote the draft. Given that it isn't fair to presume that they were representing that it passes all notability guidelines. If the creator reads your decline message then they will be aware of what they have to do to get the page accepted and they will be able to have a a go at it. Unless we delete the page. I doubt the subject is notable but it isn't impossible and unless you've checked every source in existence you can't be certain. Moving a draft which you admit isn't ready for mainspace to mainspace just so you can get it deleted is disruptive editing. Hut 8.5 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they had placed the Draft in mainspace directly it would be immediately deleted. MfD gives them a week. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to impose that deadline. Hut 8.5 20:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Without a guideline saying that good-faith hopeless drafts can be deleted, and this is a good-faith hopeless draft, therefore better than much of what comes in to AFC, I see no reason to delete. I won't say that this nomination is bitey, because I don't like that guideline, but it doesn't serve a purpose, and there is no need to delete at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The invitation to improve and resubmit is not consistent with a need to delete. Incompetent processes at play, deletion will just hide the evidence. And WP:NMFD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm in letting G13 eventually work its course if the author can't get it up to standard. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At NPP his would be a straight WP:G11. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually. Yes, I agree G11 eligible. The nominator’s rationale is terribly substandard though. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2018 (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.