Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied. Moving an unsuitable article to mainspace in order to take it to AfD was highly disruptive. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Moving an article into mainspace that is known to be unsuitable is highly disruptive. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Chaz Knapp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure this individual passes the notability standards. This was moved here following the closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. Of the sources, only this one seems the closest to an independent reliable source. According to the article, the band was picked up by Fat Cat Records, not the individual and the band seems to have four releases from that label. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy to User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp, where it was located until it was moved to mainspace in bad faith. This page is a userspace draft that was moved to mainspace by after they nominated it for deletion at MfD and the discussion was closed as keep. The explicit purpose of this move was to get the page deleted at AfD, where there are more rigorous standards than MfD. The constitutes a bureaucratic end-run around MfD and a bad-faith move-- it is inappropriate to move a page to mainspace that one believes would fail AfD, especially for the purpose of getting it deleted. This tactic of Legacypac's has been discussed and roundly condemned at the userpage policy talk page and ANI. The appropriate response is to reverse the move, not to reward the behavior. Also, since this is the second deletion discussion for this page in recent weeks, it seems appropriate to ping, who participated in the first, and , the creator or the page. A2soup (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A2soup refuses to test notability at MfD, and now attacks me instead of testing notability at AfD when someone else AfDs the page. No valid reason given to userfy back to stale draft. Userspace is for developing articles, not indefinitely storing non-notable articles. The inactive creator has already been notified, and has not participated, so no need to ping them again. which brings me too:


 * Delete since no one has come up with any evidence this person passes WP:GNG. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you didn't think User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp passed GNG, why did you move the draft to mainspace? It seems inappropriate to clutter the encyclopedia by creating articles that you know don't pass GNG. The fact that I and others at MfD refuse to delete based on notability concerns (which is the consensus position) does not justify intentionally creating non-notable articles. The reasoning for userfication is that the draft was moved inappropriately for the purpose of subverting the proper deletion process, so AfD is the wrong venue - this page is properly a userspace draft and needs to be deleted or kept as a userspace draft. A2soup (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you don't think it passes GNG and it should be deleted then? If you want to keep it, you must think it suitable for the project. Otherwise it is a NOTAWEBHOST violation. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy or Draftify - Does not meet general notability guidelines as it is but should be kept to allow references to satisfy GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Moving to draft or userspace would be an exercise in futility given this individual is not notable, and moreover would violate WP:NOTWEBHOST. AfD does not need to and should not carry out futile tasks, and absolutely should not violate WP:NOT. Every single one of this individual's 141 ghits is not significant coverage or not independent coverage. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:37, 20 March 2016 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.