Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Untitled LEGO film
- 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. ✗plicit 11:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Draft:Untitled LEGO film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft about something we don't know yet, no title, no info, no image, not relevant at the moment. We should wait for more information before creating a draft, the creator is not against deletion. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Per WP:NDRAFT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not enough to precisely respect Wikipedia's rules without reflection. Do you know how to identify exactly what we are talking about? Because I don't. We just know that it is a Lego film that could be anything and whose release is not yet certain, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creation is rushed, we will end up with duplicates or give additional work to the draft reviewers. As I said to the creator of the article, I am not against the creation of a draft on a future Lego film but currently there is nothing, even the title of the article does not allow a clear identification, imagine that we start creating this kind of drafts/articles every day without a minimum identification being possible, we would not get out of it. The creator himself is not against deletion while waiting for additional information. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good evening SparklingBlueMoon, I would like to direct your attention to some points mentioned in Wikipedia:NDRAFT. Now, if this was created in mainspace, I do agree it would be deleted quickly, if not under CSD:A1 or A3 then a snow vote at AfD. That being said, draftspace is self cleaning, and unless there is a pressing, unambiguous reason to delete (copyvio, attack page, hoax, etc.), it is better to let the six month deadline pass rather than go through MfD. Not only can this create bad blood between new and experience editors, the bureaucracy this creates often extends the draft past its natural lifespan. Also, if the author agrees to CSD, they should blank and tag the page under G7 or explicitly ask another editor to do so. Thank you for your time VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not enough to precisely respect Wikipedia's rules without reflection. Do you know how to identify exactly what we are talking about? Because I don't. We just know that it is a Lego film that could be anything and whose release is not yet certain, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The creation is rushed, we will end up with duplicates or give additional work to the draft reviewers. As I said to the creator of the article, I am not against the creation of a draft on a future Lego film but currently there is nothing, even the title of the article does not allow a clear identification, imagine that we start creating this kind of drafts/articles every day without a minimum identification being possible, we would not get out of it. The creator himself is not against deletion while waiting for additional information. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - The principle of Do No Harm should be considered. What is the harm done by keeping this stub draft in draft space? There is no harm. The draft is not seen by readers, who do not view draft space. As the nominator is discovering, an editor who reads draft space should expect to find "stuff" of varying quality, including no quality. What is the harm done by deleting this stub draft? The harm may be minimal, but it would result in more nominations. There would be more work for the volunteers at MFD. Since there are no guidelines providing for the deletion of drafts (and we would be dismissing or ignoring a guideline that says that drafts are not deleted for notability), there would either be appeals to DRV because the guideline was incorrectly applied, or there might be a debate over guidelines for when drafts should be deleted. The simplest answer is the existing guideline that drafts are not deleted for notability or sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The originator of a draft may request speedy deletion of the draft as G7 if no other editor has added any substantial content. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete since we're here - this is irrelevant useless cruft. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a draft! What kind of heartless monster deletes a draft!? (Joking, I don't think you're a heartless monster, but I do think drafts that aren't actively harmful have no reason to be deleted.) FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- All drafts will be deleted after six months of no activity. What there is no reason here for, is the processing of this draft through an MfD discussion. It’s like going through a scrap paper bin looking for things to throw out now instead of when the bin gets emptied. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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.