Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skarlatos


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Skarlatos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:DENY and WP:G5 - user is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:CookieMonster755. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no benefit to WP readers from this being deleted, it's a valid page. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no benefit in keeping a disambig page created by a sock and allowing the sock to believe they got away with something and encouraging them to sock again. That's the point of WP:DENY and WP:G5.  Recreate the page yourself once it's deleted if you want {{{U|Boleyn}}, but it should not have the sock account noted in the history as the creator.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:G5. We aren't supposed to let articles stay when made my sockpuppets of blocked/banned users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's silly to remove a good page and have to recreate the exact same info with a different "author". WP:DENY states "Information on vandalism should be critically appraised for its genuine value, and if that value outweighs any detriment from the publicity of that vandal/vandalism." It's not clear what "information on vandalism" means, but if it's trying to refer to content, then it applies here. Regardless, DENY is only an essay. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: no controversial views, nothing objectionable, just a standard surname page (now I've tidied it up a bit). Wasteful to delete, even if the original creator was a sockpuppet. Pam  D  14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Page now lists another couple of names, one of whom is redlinked in 3 articles. CSD G-5 does not apply. Pam  D  15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Clarityfiend. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 20:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep G5 no longer applies to this page because it has been edited by others. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly valid DB page. There is no requirement to delete or undo all edits made by socks.  —Мандичка YO 😜 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment' and, what do you think of the comments above and the changes to the page, which now rule out G5? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence as to how substantial other users' edits have been. G5 is for articles created by sockpuppets in violation of a block/ban without substantial edits from others regardless of how "valid" it seems at first glance. Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 07:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with regarding the edits and G5.  Further, G5 is about curbing behavior rather than encouraging it.  If you can't why Gg5 exists, I can't help you.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * G5 is about articles. A disambiguation page is not really an article and nobody cares about them much. (Note they are called disambiguation pages and not disambiguation articles.) Additionally, G5 states categories created by socks or banned users may be kept if they are useful. I would say the same criteria applies to a DB page. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:01, 29 October 2015 (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.