Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:K. Annamalai

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. ✗plicit 14:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:K. Annamalai

This article has been the subject of WP:DEEPER and was on hold during the subject's election for the potential for the subject to meet assumed notability under WP:NPOL. However, this was not the case and now the article has been kept in the draft space. However, every so often new changes will be made, thereby resetting the draftspace 6 month timeline. But it is clear that the subject does not meet the Wikipedia threshold of notability for biographies, something that has been confirmed via multiple different and repeated avenues. In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace (see {{Db-draft-notice}}), I think this draft ought to be deleted manually lest it continue to languish in the draftspace only sometimes attended to, forever on hold. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Very important record and point of reference. Deleting would be a net negative. This is blacklisted and mainspace is mostly safe from intrusion of new pages on this topic. —Alalch E. 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to deletion, if the page history record is the important issue: maybe the article content ought to be {{intentionally blank}}ed but the AfC declination/rejection history left? Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I suspect the title blacklist entry is a bigger cause of mainspace being "safe" then the existence of this draft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page's existence is, and has always been, nothing other than a beacon of false hope. It is time to snuff it out, and send the signal that we are not interested. And that proposed alternative to deletion does not satisfy me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ATD wasn't my preference, I offered it as I thought it would be a roundabout way of addressing what my current issue is, it is the expected continued treatment as though the article is in the mainspace. See this edit just recently, that doesn't even begin to address the actual subject of the draft. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we need to send the signal that we *are* interested but the problem is with the topic's eligibility for an article, not with us. By saying that we are not interested (based on what? subject could become notable, active politician, not an insignificant figure) we make ourselves appear partial and situate the problem in our midst, when the problem is not here, it is there in the outside world, and the lack of recent submissions maybe means that some people have finally understood this. —Alalch E. 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator has not explained why there is anything wrong with this draft lingering in draft space, sometimes attended to, forever on hold. If the draft is deleted, a new draft will probably be created, spelled differently, to try to sneak it into article space. The edits to the draft are doing no harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only reason it isn't in mainspace is the blacklist after one of the recent DRVs. Let it stay as a honeypot. It's not taking up meaningful space. If a newer reviewer doesn't know the history, they'll have to go through an admin who will end a move to mainspace. Star Mississippi 14:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe I don't understand the argument by User:Alalch E., unless they are saying what I am saying. What is this a record of, and what is it a reference point for? I support keeping this draft, but I don't understand. Is Alalch E. saying that the draft is a honey pot? If so, I agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a honey pot, and the chronology of submission attempts and declines+rejection together with the AfC comments and also the state of the draft and the sourcing are all helpful to someone who doesn't know what is going on with this topic to form a fuller picture. If it is deleted, a new draft will be created, and then? G4 in draftspace, recreations in draftspace under various titles, new socks, blacklisting in drafstpace. All work that is not needed. —Alalch E. 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: because of the long-running shenanigans around this subject (including, but far from only, at this title), I'm as fed up with this as the next guy and would like to draw a line under it... but somehow I doubt deleting this draft will achieve that. I also see no compelling policy-based reason to delete. Conversely, while I get the honey-pot-argument, I think it's the title rather than this particular version that is the honey-pot, so retaining this draft for that reason seems unnecessary. All of which is another way of saying I don't particularly mind either way. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a candidate politician who has come very close, and holds party positions, but fails NPOL, this is exactly the sort of thing that belongs in draftspace, and it being kept alive by edits is exactly a desirable feature of the system. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Pppery. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:11, 2 October 2024 (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.