Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (awards)

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 . ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (awards)

This page is not a community approved policy or a guideline but an unvetted draft proposal. Requesting the shortcut WP:NAWARD and the page to be ~~deleted~~ "userfied" ^updated since the AfD participants (example here and here) are misquoting the shortcut as an acceptable notability criteria, for awards, which this page never was. I had started the discussion on the redirect but I was suggested to initiate this MfD here. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC) updated at 13:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator as evident in the discussion, the community feels that unvetted drafts can remain in WP space. I will tag it accordingly. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--That's an invalid MFD reason and there were ample discussion (see the t/p; wherein pretty many supported the ideas) before it was left to wither. ∯WBG^converse 15:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, you can be assured that invalid votes will not be counted. Also, FWIW, that's not a notability guideline for awards but a guideline to decide whether receiving an award counts to notability of the subject. The two are wildly different stuff.
If you withdraw this; I can slap the templates that mentions the proposed guideline to be in a state of suspend and that has not been any vetted by the broader community.∯WBG^converse 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply, the guidelines on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Before nominating a page for deletion for Policies, guidelines and process pages. state that the "established pages and "proposals under discussion" should not be deleted. The subject is neither an established criteria nor is under discussion. so the nomination is not invalid. The talk page discussion was abandoned mid way during suggestions to improve, and there isn't any RfC that I am aware of about this page, so it is not an "established page"
And, you can be assured that invalid votes will not be counted, in an ideal Wikiworld that should always happen, but based on my multiple recent experiences it appears to me that often "numbers rule the day". IMHO this page cannot be left to remain in WP space throughout eternity without a consensus discussion, to mislead AfD participants. Either it should be deleted or it should be improved upon to bring it upto the mark to existing norms (in someone's user/draft space) and then voted for consensus, before this can be brought into the WP space. In either way, it should not be "left to wither", the way it is, to mislead AfD participants as has happened in the examples I gave. Because of these reasons this redirect and corresponding talk page is actually doing more harm than good. hence I believe it should be deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC) -updated 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep invalid rationale for deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and use it to develop an article for awards notability either for articles about the awards themselves, the awards that might give people notability. Also when does an award get its own article vs. being part of the overall set of awards. This should be managed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals If there are no plans to make it a useful notability page, tag it as an essay or failed proposal instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, User:AngusWOOF guys I can understand the good intentions behind your opinion, but please understand that this has been "left to wither" in this state for past 11 years . I have explained why this is causing real problems by its existence in the WP space, If anyone of you 2 or User:Winged Blades of Godric would like to work on it and bring it up for community consensus, by all means move it to userspace and develop it, bring it infront of community for vetting and get it to its intended use. But please do not just vote Keep here and leave this like this for another decade or two. If none of you are willing to come in front to take this up then I would recommend the closing admin to move this to the userspace of User:Nard the Bard who appears to be the sole major contributor of this "proposed criteria page". --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to mark it as a notability essay or whatever. But even it it's moved to userspace, the redirect will remain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging as a notability essay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Project related pages are not eligible for MfD as a means to curtail discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's already marked as historical, that's plenty to indicate it doesn't have consensus behind it. If we had to nuke everything that got mis-cited at AfD, I'm not sure we'd have any essays left. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems that no one is inclined for deletion so I have changed my nomination for userfication because moving to author's userspace will also solve the problem I raised. Innisfree987, SmokeyJoe This is just an essay (user draft) that should have been created in user space but was created at WP space, without any consensus discussion and has been there for 11 years. I understand the logic of keeping a vetted policy/guideline page that became obsolete with time in WP space appropriately marked as historical. But this is still a user draft. May I know what specific concerns prevent it from being userfied. (courtesy ping Headbomb, User:AngusWOOF and User:Winged Blades of Godric since I am no longer seeking a deletion but userfication and have modified the nomination. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the best of my knowledge, essays are mostly allowed, unless there is something specifically wrong with them, such as being patent nonsense or clearly contrary to policy. Please show me the guideline that says that we delete old essays when... Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise don't understand there to be any rule that an essay must have consensus to exist in Wikipedia space rather than user space. Since the essay tag itself says that the page only represents the views of one or more Wikipedia contributors, it seems fairly clear even being literally just one person's opinion is not disqualifying. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 11 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.