Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gildir/Alex Amidon

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 . CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gildir/Alex Amidon[edit]

College football players are not not notable making this stale draft hopeless. If he gets drafted someone will start the page Legacypac (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NMFD; an uphill battle is not the same thing as implausibility. Some college players become notable without ever playing professionally. VQuakr (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NMFD is not policy it is carefully cherrypicked wording from an RFC. The chances of a college player becoming wikinotable is very slim. In the mean time we don't host a shadow encyclopidia of pages on people who might someday qualify for a page. WP:ANYBIO applies site wide, and this page has had plenty of time for the creator to demonstrate notability. So we should delete. Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: you've alluded to WP:NMFD as being "cherry picked" in a few different discussions, but you've never attempted to defend the (quite silly) claim when challenged. The underlying RfC is a single sentence; the closure was two sentences. The RfC was written because MfD was being swamped with crappy nominations that cited notability, and you were the only editor, out of 18, that !voted in favor of applying WP:N to drafts. What about it is "cherry picked"?

WP:ANYBIO is a notability guideline; it applies to article space not site wide. I'm a little surprised you haven't picked this stuff up by now. VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The misleading RFC was phrased in a way that no one would disagree with it - like motherhood is good. It is applied by you in a way to defend retention of non-notable drafts indefinately - that most of the Support voter would never support. I've explained this before and actual practice does not support your application. I appreciate the admission you helped create that RFC and ALPHABET link specifically to frustrate me. Legacypac (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a diff supporting your claim that I created that RfC or shortcut. Whatever "admission" you allude to above appears to be of your imagination. The RfC query was "Do notability guidelines apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?" - hardly a leading question. Your continued citation of notability at MfD is a symptom either of your laziness or your incompetence; which is it? VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your post is not WP:CIVIL. I will not dive into the specifics of how that RfC was crafted for good reason. I might craft a RFC that asks "Is Draft and Userspace a permanent repository for pages on topics that fail WP:N an/or WP:V?" Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable draft. Active user, so don't even blank. Many ghits, plausible notability, public person. The RfC was very clear that MfD is not to be used for notability-testing of drafts. The mere possibility "If he gets drafted someone will start the page" is a reason to keep this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hardly. The chances of a college ball player being drafted is slight amd NFOOT is clear. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 8 August 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.