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 . This has sat open for twelve days, despite clear consensus to delete this per WP:TNT, probably because PMC voted on this discussion and feels that he therefore cannot close it. I'm aware users aren't supposed to make closures that they can't implement, but this has been left open far too long, so I'll go ahead and boldly close this as delete and give PMC the nod to delete it. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete per this closure, but if anyone has concerns please ping me and I'll revert. (Compassionate727, no big deal, but it's she) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Brain cysts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page tagged "promising draft" which proports to insulate it from G13 forever. Draft has been rejected by multiple afc reviewers and members of our medical project for a variety of unfixable issues. See the comments on the draft face and talk including the one that says it would need a complete rewrite from scratch. We've wasted enough time on something no one is working on now and which can't be accepted. Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete given the commentary from WP:MED members advising that the content is poorly sourced and would need to be entirely rewritten anyway. If they agree that it is not worth working on, then I believe them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Arachnoid cyst. There could be a spin out topic on this from that article for al I know, but they way to do it is from the article and talk page. Forking to draftspace is a real problem with draftspace. Defer to MEDRES for their opinions, but it looks like WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to me. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend keeping the talk page. Deletion of the draft is not necessary, but it can never be used. Possibly move the talk page to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Brain cysts to preserve the valuable comments. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe It doesn't scream SYNTH or OR, but it won't make a very useful article either. There are a number of different brain cysts beyond arachnoid cysts, even though they are less common. The best solution is to disambiguate them. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not scream, no, but it crosses the line, putting together specific sources to make comment. The author has defined the “brain cyst” as a cyst inside the skull, and then says over-specific things about features of them. Get “brain cyst” mentioned in other articles, I say, otherwise he is content forking out of sight of interested editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you seem to misunderstand. Cysts in the brain are a legitimate topic, just not one which we could write a decent article one — as it is too broad. This is a reason to use the article as a disambiguation page. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Legacypac: Where is the comment saying it would need a complete rewrite from scratch? Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I defer to WP:MED members. I don't know if this would be a useful starting point for a significantly different article, or if WP:TNT is appropriate. I will post a notice at WP:MED re: this discussion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the talk page of the draft itself, Jytdog says Will have to be almost completely rewritten based on good sources. Much of the content is unsourced, which I why I voted to delete. If we have to rewrite the draft entirely, it's not of much worth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs a lot of work. Clinically relevant entity (more than just disambiguation), particularly if lesions are of indeterminate aetiology. The current content is referenced heavily to non-WP:MEDRS sources. JFW | T@lk 11:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This illustrates the hazards of reckless use of the {{Promising draft}} tag, which simply preserves a draft that isn't being substantially improved. The author doesn't seem to be making material progress on this draft, even if they are tweaking it, and the tag protects it from the calendar deadline. There are now two questions to be addressed, whether to delete the draft, and whether to strip the tag. The latter is a no-brainer; the tag just leaves it until the end of the world. As to the draft itself:
• Delete or Disambiguate as per SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We already have articles on multiple forms of "brain cysts", which are sourced and better written. If we need an article on brain cysts, it can be an index page. Natureium (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have Central nervous system cyst already and this should be merged to that after trimming primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doc James: Do you think this should be kept to facilitate merging? (Other users are voting for straight delete.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourcing is too poor so far from ready to merge. Might be easiest to simple start over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The promising draft tag has been removed [1] in violation of the "rules". Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the rules? It doesn't say on the tag not to remove it. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Inappropriate_removals_of_promising_draft and the RFC that that thread is part of. It is a very special template. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2018 (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.