Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Douglas Haig in 1914-15

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 . RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Douglas Haig in 1914-15

These drafts have existed for 6 years, with the author making a minor change every week to avoid G13. It is my belief that we do not need a page on a individual for every year in the First World War; any notable information can be added to the existing article at Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. CoolSkittle (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your beliefs notwithstanding, I can assure you that there is more than enough to be said about the Life and Times of Douglas Haig to fill several articles. It is far from uncommon nowadays - which it wasn't six years ago - for people of first rank importance to have whole families of articles devoted to them, which also makes it easier to vary the level of coverage for those who want to read the fine detail and those who just want a quick overview.

However, on a more practical note, I don't have any immediate plans to get these Haig articles finished, partly because I have less time for serious writing (we all have our niches on wikipedia and that one's mine) now than I did a few year ago, and partly because I have other writing projects which need working on when I can make the time. Having just discovered how to create a second sandbox, I am happy to move the material there for storage if people feel it is an issue.Paulturtle (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A draft. Not abandoned. There are no time limits. The author should read WP:DUD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SmokeyJoe. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the nominator says is true, that we don't need all of these articles, but they aren't articles. They are drafts, and the information in them may be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2019 (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.