Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:History of Thailand since 2001

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) 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:History of Thailand since 2001[edit]

Well written but completely uncited essay/research paper living in draft space. This would fall well below the WP:OR as there are no citations or references to back up the prose. Author has not made any substantive changes to this draft since November 2016 and refuses to get on a guided improvement plan (AFC) so we've let this page sit in draft space for long enough. No opposition to Userfication to the user's own space, but it needs to not return to Draft space unless there's a commitment to being on a plan for improvements.

CC @Calliopejen1: as the placer of "Promising Draft" template

CC @Legacypac, RHaworth, and KylieTastic: who have interacted with this Draft previously in the context of AFC. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well passed 6 months Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and blank {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. I recommend this action on things like this (substantial works by experienced editors) without coming to mfd first. Come to mfd second. Agree, the page fails WP:NOR, which means it is not on a page to mainspace, but is acceptable as userpage notes. There is no need or benefit to deletion of the residual redirect after the move. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, because as OR by a single author, it is to be associated with that user;

Blank because the material contained, and findable, by Wikipedia searching, is unreliable. It is dangerously unreliable without the context of the author. It is ok for it to be found by reviewing contributions, but not at face value. Adding references to unreferenced OR is scholarly dishonesty. The material was not based on those sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that this is dangerously unreliable without the context of the author What is the "danger"? That someone might believe an incorrect statement about Thai history (assuming that this draft contains incorrect statements, which no one has even asserted in this discussion)? And how would labeling it as the product of a particular username reduce any such danger? You also say that Adding references to unreferenced OR is scholarly dishonesty. Then much of Wikipedia is dishonest. Our verifibility policy explicitly says that statements which can be supported by a source if challenged are acceptable without a current source. Any demand that an article, much less a draft, be sourced in every particular in advance is a violation of that policy. It is perfectly permissible to draft and then search for and add sources. If in fact the statements in this draft are accurate, and if sources can be found which support it, and demonstrate that accuracy, this is perfectly acceptable, and if you claim it is not, please point to any policy that says so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NODEADLINE. There is no harm but only potential benefit in retaining this draft. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Harm? have you not read WP:NOTWEBHOST recently? Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you? WP:NOTWEBHOST prohibits 1) Personal web pages, 2) File storage areas., 3)) Dating services, 4) Memorials, and 5) Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. This content is clearly related to Wikipedia, does anyone seriously argue that Thai history is not a valid topic for a Wikipedia article, or that this content is not a possibly useful exposition of that topic? As for the other 4 categories, it is to laugh. This cannot be described as any of those with a straight face. So exactly how is this in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, Hasteur. Be specific, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File Storage areas and Content for projects unrelated to wikipedia. IF this draft were being useful to WP:5P1 the author would have made improvements after the first AFC decline (that the author chose to de-enroll from), but he didn't. If the author wants to keep the text in his userspace or local machine until they're ready to work on it, they can. However a indefinite residence in Draft space is outright banned per WP:DRAFTS Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be created and developed. They help new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. Feedback has been provided (and promptly deleted by the author) so this does not belong in draft space. Hasteur (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTS also says Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process. (my emphasis) Nowhere in WP:DRAFTS is there any deadline specified or implied. Drafts are for the "development" of articvels, yes, but there is no timeline or process which development must follow, nor is an editor required to accept feedback which was not requested. The feedback actually provided was This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources., and Is this useful?. I don't see much in the way of actionable advice there. as to File Storage areas WP:NOTWEBHOST speaks of images and other things that would belong in the File: namespace, not of text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This fundamentally comes down to the willfull misuse of the "Promising Draft" template. The author of the page has been provided advice as to what they need to do to improve the page (which they delete or ignore), They leave it in the Draft Namespace without a single citation as WP:SYNTH or completely original prose, and some editor decided to slap a "request" template on it meaning we have to come here to either get deletion or improvement on the draft. As I've indicated multiple times This hasn't had any content developed on it or movement to mainspace in nearly 2 years. How much longer is this going to sit while the author is off doing other things? Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that it has no sources, but someone could add references to it, so it is useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOHARM as why your vote is useless. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Blanking this is a genuinely terrible idea for no reason. Either delete it or leave it alone, and I say leave it alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per Godsy. Also, just because something does not yet have citations does not mean it is original research. This is a reasonable account of the history of Thailand since 2001 (and perhaps should just be moved to mainspace so others can improve it). Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See response to Godsy's argument. It may be reasonable, but the author is active, has resisted attempts to get outside guidance on improving it, and generally sat here as a great unpublished OR block. Time to put up (improve it so it can be accepted) or shut up (delete this off public view). Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many people have to tell you that this is not OR? By "reasonable" I mean that it looks basically accurate to me as someone who has lived in Thailand and follow developments in Thai news that make it to the sources I read (The Economist etc.). I can't vouch that it is 100% accurate but it is by no means original research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any sign of original research here. Are there reliable sources contradicting this content? If there is a need for requiring an editor to make "a commitment to being on a plan for improvements" then it should be raised as a user conduct issue (please ping me so I can oppose any requirement in this case). Thincat (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has resisted attempts to get this Mainspace ready, so it's a waste of wikipedia's resources if they're not going to contribute to the purpose of wikipedia (WP:5P1) Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paul 012 has made a substantial contribution on Wikipedia over many years.[1] He has created more articles[2] than anyone else at this discussion apart from the exceptional achievements of Calliopejen1. It is wholly inappropriate to suggest that Paul requires "outside guidance" on how to create an article and, worse, to suggest that deletion would be beneficial. Such perspectives are perverse. The idea that he does not "contribute to the purpose of Wikipedia" is ridiculous. Thincat (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hastur saus that Paul 012 has resisted attempts to get this Mainspace ready. So far as I can see, that means that when another editor slapped an AfC tag on this and 90 minutes later a reviewer added a decline template, paul 012 reverted both actions, neither of which did anything to improve the draft. The decline informed the world that this was not properly sourced, which was hardly news. How is this "resistance" to legit attempts to improve the draft? (or has there been some other "resistance" I am not aware of?) I thought AfC was supposed to be optional, and no one was required to use it? Is there to be a rule that not using it is grounds for deletion after a given time? I would oppose any such rule. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This obviously needs sources to be cited, but then if something is complete it should be moved out of draft. I see no reason that this isn't a plausible draft and could not become a valid article with further editing. I see no reason to assume that this is OR, though of course one cannot be sure without sources to check. but I assume good faith. If properly sourced, this might be ready for mainspace soon, but it should not be moved to mainspace unsourced. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So are you personally volunteering to fix this, or are you joining the chorus of "If only someone would fix this". This has remained substantially the same since November 2016. How much longer are you intending on giving this leeway? Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No i am not volunteering to work on this, Thai history is not a field I know well enough to do a good job on this draft. As to how long I am prepared to wait, as long as it takes for this to be edited into a valid article, or for someone to suggest a valid policy-based reason for deletion, which I haven't seen in this discussion. There is no deadline and I wish some editors stopped acting as if there were. OR has been alleged, but I haven't seen any sign of it, nor is that a valid reason to delete a draft in any case. This is admittedly uncited, but that also is not a valid reason to delete a draft. The creator, Paul 012, indicates below an intention to continue work on this, which I have no reason to doubt. Paul 012 desires assistance, and I hope an editor capable of giving it is also willing. I would be willing to help with citation formatting, but I am not the person to identify valid reliable sources for this, which it needs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IF Paul wanted assistance, they'd put it in AFC so that they could be told what needs to be fixed, but that was a lie. So what other esartz argument would you like to put forth. This is the most recent "substantive" change (discluding rejection of AFC comments, discluding wikilinking, discluding pipelinking). Are you really trying to tell me that this is under active development? Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paul obviously would appreciate other people adding references to and improving the article. He does not need to "be told what needs to be fixed"--he knows that already. Adding an AFC tag is not a good way to attract other editors to help find references. As Paul says, it would just result in a rejection notice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Firstly, those arguing that this draft fails WP:OR really need to follow the link and re-read what it says. A current lack of references is a WP:Verifiability issue, but does not make anything original research. The statement, "Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969," can in no way be considered original research, even if it's uncited. Secondly, this is a very clear demonstration of the current brokenness of the Draft namespace. I very consciously created this under Draft: rather than User: so that other interested editors may contribute to it, something not encouraged by userspace drafts, which implies WP:Ownership of content. However, as far as I've seen (not just with this article, but with the vast majority of AfC submissions as well), nothing but WP:OWN also seems to be the default expectation here. I find it ironic that Hasteur is accusing me of refusing "to get on a guided improvement plan (AFC)", when we all know that the only thing AfC would accomplish is the swift slapping on of a rejection template by a passing reviewer, with the expectation that the burden is pushed solely on the draft creator to resolve any of the issues. Thank you, but I think I am experienced enough to know when this draft is ready for Main space, and am very able to carry out the move myself, when the time comes. What is needed here is not the adding on of meaningless processes, but actual contributions by editors who are willing and have the time and energy to spend writing about the topic. I am currently out of the latter two, but fully expect to pick this up and continue in the future. But since clearly no one else is interested in contributing, and its existence in Draft space is deemed so harmful, just move it under my user page if you must. (The funny thing here is, had this been directly created as a new article, it would probably have been tagged with plethora of maintenance templates, but would have had zero chance of getting deleted at AfD. It says a lot how we tag incomplete articles for improvement, but for drafts, the only option is deletion.) --Paul_012 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So completely wrong in assumptions about AFC that I can tell that you don't even bother. Please self request to move to your user space so we can short circuit this pointless debate. Hasteur (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is better that drafts like this remain in draftspace. If Paul loses interest in his article and leaves Wikipedia, a userspace draft might as well never have been created. In draft space, others can pick up where Paul left off. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 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.