Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of public art in Alaska

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: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of public art in Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A very stale draft that has had no substantive edits since the day enter it was created in 2015. This was never anything close to a list, having only one entry, and not a notable one as it is just a small mural on a boardwalk, artist unknown. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank it, or delete the lot, but please don't bring the cruft one by one. Busywork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid don't understand this comment at all. In particular "delete the lot". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Delete everything old in draftspace, indeed delete all of draftspace" I think would be a net positive. See the bottom of WT:Drafts, where there is a budding consensus for a quality assessment of drafts, as "promising", and leaving the rest as more easily deleted by qualified reviewers. I think that might be a good way to deal with pages like this. One MfD discussion per old draft is horrendously inefficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought you meant this was part of some particular group of public art lists or something, so thanks for clearing that up. I tend to agree that there is a lot of garbage with no potential in draft space, and if a new process emerges while this mfd is underway I'd be fine with letting it handle it. I just noticed that an image I took was being used in a draft, so I clicked on it and found this rather lame, abandoned attempt at a list article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete. Cleaning up garbage connected to your own images is definitely good work on your part. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is part of a group of public art lists. I was hoping that in creating this page that it would attract other people to add to it and help the Public Art WikiProject. SkymasterUK (talk) 15:49, 7 March 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.