Draft talk:Object show

Title

This was moved from Draft:Object Show to Draft:Object show, a title @Mifter: had just protected due to repeat recreation which is why @Matchacloudss: likely had to use the title they did. @Not-cheesewhisk3rs: did not err in moving it as they are well beyond ECR, but I feel like this needs broader discussion before it is moved any further. While BFDI has been deemed notable, it's not yet clear we need all the titles. NB: I will not be SALTING as that solves nothing, but do not believe there should be further unilateral moves. I have no POV on this draft's existence in the slightest. There's a meta discussion somewhere on BFDI, I'll link to this if I can find it. Star Mississippi 03:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I will not be SALTING as that solves nothing – Does it not? It worked last time, no further recreations after it was added to the title blacklist, or at least none noted at WP:BFDI#List of publicly logged deletions. Honestly I'm not sure it should have been unsalted: Object shows weren't discussed at the cited deletion review at all (outside a passing mention in a source assessment table), and its entry in the TBL wasn't tagged with "as above" like the other unsalted entries. It was salted per consensus formed separate from the main BFDI article.

My suggestion would be to resalt and have it go through DRV, same as BFDI. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four sorry I should have linked: User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_14#Salt is why I don't think it solved anything. It was probably blacklisting that remedied the recreation. I have no objection if you request SALTING or another admin chooses to at their own volition, I just personally don't think it would accomplish much now. Noting there's also User_talk:Trade#Cary_and_Michael_Huang and the related RfD. While I personally have no opinion on BFDI's notability, I think we as a community are wasting a ton of time on all of these discussions. Star Mississippi 13:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a little confusing because WP:SALT does state that preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, and so in my interpretation the title blacklist is a component of salt.

In the interest of avoiding creating a timesink resalt discussion, I'd be fine with letting the draft stand for now that a non-sock editor has created it. If there are problems in the future then it'll make for a speedy resalt discussion anyways. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging that @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. I didn't remember it. Title blacklisting is 100% beyond my tech abilities. But like you, agree we don't need another discussion. I just wanted this to be more clear than an edit summary on why I move protected it. Star Mississippi 14:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

hey there! I'm new to the whole making draft thing (probably should've checked the teahouse first), but I didn't know that my draft was actually visible lol. I kind of just wrote it for fun when I was bored at school, but I find it amazing how people caught on to it and people started to contribute! I know it most likely won't get turned into a mainpage article due to lack of credible sources. anyways, tell me anything I need to fix with the draft ^_^ Matchacloudss (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Matchacloudss, the purpose of draftspace is to allow editors to develop new articles. If a topic isn't intended to become a new article, or is highly unlikely to be notable, then draftspace is not the place for it. Other projects like Fandom or Miraheze may host a wiki that would be a better fit.

Now that the draft exists the main options are: to improve it like any other article or draft, or to let it lay dormant for six months after which it will be WP:G13 deleted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)