Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leycang El Grandioso

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. This is a procedural mess. The author was not necessarily wrong to agree to work on it in draftspace, but it is not unknown of editors to dodge review of non-notable topics by moving something to draft and then recreating it soon after. As such, the AfD, once opened, should be allowed to run its course; and if the author wants to save everyone trouble, they should explicitly undertake to substantially improve the claim to notability and/or to recreate only via WP:AFC. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leycang El Grandioso

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Leycang El Grandioso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable performer Bedivere (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Source 2, 3 and 20 are trivial mentions, and source 12 is permanently dead. All the rest of the cited sources are promotional pieces. Many of them share similar word choice, such as "bring more suprises/best of his music to all the fans", "202x has been a fruitful year for Leycang", or "leave our flag always high throughout the world", to a point where it can't possibly be a coincidence. And others still troubled me with their celebratory tone and "check out his music/social media" at the bottom of the contents. Coverage about him that I found are trivial mentions or promotional pieces as well. I can't find much about the award he's been given/nominated for either. The subject just does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Contributor draftified the article (leaving a redirect behind) to Draft:Leycang El Grandioso. The redirect cannot remain, but do we restore the article until the discussion ends? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can close the discussion, I have already transferred the article to a draft, and if you wish I can send it to my workshop to work on it there, there is no problem. I hope you can understand. Ftrbnd (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be clarified that you have every right to restore the article and we continue with the discussion about whether or not to delete the article. Kind regards, Ftrbnd (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reverted @Doomsdayer520:'s non admin closure. Although the article has been draft-ified, the discussion on the deletion on the former-article-turned-draft needs to be continued, and to me it is obvious it will be deleted. I'm afraid it's been draft-ified to avoid deletion. That simply cannot be allowed. Bedivere (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you see that the article title at the top of this discussion is in RED, meaning that the mainspace article that this AfD is about has been deleted? Click on that red title and you will see it was speedy deleted by the admin Fastily because of the draftification. That means this AfD is over and closing it is standard procedure. If you think the draft version should also be deleted then that discussion must take place elsewhere. You just created more work for someone. I could revert your revert and close this AfD again, but you can explain why someone else now has to do it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: While 'draftify' is one possible outcome of the discussion, the fact that someone moves an article under deletion discussion does not mean the discussion should be closed. The redirect was deleted because it was a cross-namespace redirect; a redirect from article space to draft space or user space is simply not allowed.
One aspect of the discussion is to consider whether the subject is notable – not just whether the current references in the article establish notability but whether it appears there exist references that could establish notability. Moving the article should not short-circuit the discussion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs)
This is truly anal-retentive procedure worship. The article's creator voluntarily moved the article out of mainspace in the good-faith belief that it was not yet ready, meaning that it had technically been deleted which was the goal of the nomination. But then the nominator brought it back into mainspace in the interests of keeping a then-irrelevant forum discussion open and after it reached the nominator's desired conclusion. And the ensuing discussion is likely to lead to the exact same conclusion that had already been reached. The bureaucrats at the DMV are jealous. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: creator draftified the article, and while it was reverted, I don't see any reason to delete this instead of following their wishes. Let them build on it in draftspace and potentially submit it, or G13 will kick in eventually. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to enhance the article so that it can meet the notability criteria in the future. If you agree, please send the article to my personal workshop, where I will work on it further. Once I consider it ready (at least from my perspective), I will put it into a draft and submit a request to see if it meets the requirements at that time. Do you agree with this proposal? - Ftrbnd (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to include that if you decide to delete the article because it truly does not meet the notability criteria, you can do so without any issues, and I won't write anything further about the artist unless they gain greater prominence in the future. My intention is just to bring this discussion to a close so that it doesn't take up any more of our time, and we can continue improving Wikipedia to make it a safe environment. - Ftrbnd (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - For procedural and good-faith reasons, which was already done as described several times above by the article's creator. Kudos to the Admin who finishes the unnecessary work created by the bureaucrats above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 29 May 2023 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leycang_El_Grandioso&oldid=1157596999"