Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aegism100/sandbox

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aegism100/sandbox

Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term never caught on. It seems to be something coined in one book in 2007 and ignored by the world [1] The user never did anything but create these pages. There is no prospect this will be or should be improved or moved to mainspace. Basically a NOTAWEBHOST violation, not really hoax but definitely something invented with no RS backing it up. Delete both pages. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable draft idea, reasonable draft material including references. Verifiable, may be useful in other articles. This is not the sort of cruft that should be deleted as definitely worthless, it is OK indefinitely in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check the linked [2] search? Which of the 3 non-Wiki stale draft related sources would you suggest we build the article out on? Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It looks like a topic where useful sources may not be online. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stale, unreferenced stub. It does not appear that a reasonable case of notability could be made. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To delete on the basis of questioned notability contravenes the clear consensus demonstrated at Wikipedia_talk:N#RfC:_Does_WP:N_apply_to_drafts_in_userspace_or_draftspace.3F. To examine wikipedia-notability properly takes a lot of effort. At a minimum, the links provides at AfD should be presented. I'm thinking we need a WP:DfD, Drafts for Deletion. MfD is not set up for notability-analysis. Criteria for deletion of drafts are different to that for deletion of articles. Please stop these nominations and work with the community in developing a consensus for what to do with drafts of unclear potential, like this one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer: I think that this stub should be deleted because it is stale--created and abandoned in 2012 by a SPA editor who has also abandoned WP. That it also appears to be unnotable is a reason not to attempt to salvage the material, however miniscule. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a stale draft that's extraordinarily unlikely to yield anything of use to the encyclopedia. ~ Rob^Talk 21:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a good-faith, non-problematic draft. Its deletion provides no benefit to the project (or can someone point out a benefit?). A2soup (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (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.