Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Black Scar Blues

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: delete. Although if an editor in good standing wants a copy so they can take responsibility and mainspace it, I'm willing to do that. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Black Scar Blues


One of the actors who wrote directed and edited this film has been trying to get this page approved since Sept 2017. It's been declined 6 times so far. It may never go G13 with this persistence. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in draft. Unclear notability.  Possibly almost suitable for mainspace.  This draft history is a clear example of the failure of communication by the AfC templates, the author  is in a cycle of editimprove - submit - rejectadvice - editimprove.  He appears to improve it with every cycle, and so is doing exactly what the template tells him to do.  The film exists, was released, is reviewed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning mainspace on the basis of references 3 and 4 demonstrating notability, noting more out there. Independence of the reviews might be questions, and COI of the author is an issue that is not agreed to mandate deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't an area of interest for me so I don't know, but if this article in it's present version had been created directly in main space by an established editor, surely no-one would have considered sending it to AfD, never mind it being deleted there. Obviously it is now under severe review blight so it may have no future. What a shame. Thincat (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mainspace as per Thincat. If a draft article can be imagined not to be deleted at AFD then this basically the rule that says it should be moved to mainspace. Egaoblai (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * comment if this were at AfD I'd say delete as insufficient RS, IS, blah blah, not notable. Are we still setting 50% likelihood of deletion as the threshold? Of course, we won't know how it will be received until it actually enters mainspace. (I don't think "can be imagined" is a good bench mark. Some people have too much imagination.)-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that this cannot be moved to mainspace because it is deceptive native advertising – publicity material created without proper disclosure by one of the owners of Rising Tiger Films, apparently in violation of our Terms of Use – though our paid-contribution disclosure policy is less than clear on the position of company owners. NB: the creator of the draft was previously User:RisingTigerFilms, so there's no doubt about the COI. If the topic is notable (and I haven't looked into that) and the draft unusable, the simplest solution is to make a quick stub for the film and move on. The page has been declined six times, but as far as I can see no-one has even mentioned the COI problem to the new editor. Shouldn't AfC reviewers be doing that as a matter of course? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, well spotted, there is an important issue here. I (everyone?) missed that. There is a possible lack of editorial independence here beyond being an actor in the movie. Of course in some cases we allow editors not to be independent but the matter needs to be discussed bearing this in mind. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn’t miss it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I don't know how we handle this type of thing. In this case one discussion has been better than a long line of reviewers. Thincat (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked about any connection here. My question may well be naïve but I hope it isn't improper. Thincat (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t know that we have a standard for handling this sort of thing, in fact I think we don’t. Individuals sometimes assert otherwise, but every well-participated discussion I see ends up concluding that COI is not per se a reason for deletion. Indeed, even UPE is not a reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think COI will always be a grey area. For me, UPE is contrary to the terms of use and TOU-violating edits should (normally) be deleted. If the editor is not the film "owner" then there is misrepresentation, a TOU violation. If he is then I'm not sure if ownership constitutes receiving compensation (I think it should do) but I think extreme similarity of username (absent a disclaimer) might well count as disclosure (though it fails the strict WMF TOU requirements). I'll be OK with (and will learn from) whatever result here. In my view also the topic has demonstrated notability. Thincat (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No need to ask about a connection. The creator's account name is the same as one of the two lead actors. The connection is obvious and noted in my nomination statement. If he is also an owner in the production company as suggested above, that is another connection. Legacypac (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that but the user might deny any connection and might give a credible explanation. My username,, is (almost) the same as a business with an article on WP, Thincats so if someone was suspicious of my editing it would be nice if they asked if I was connected. In fact I have a denial on my userpage so they don't need to. BTW my username was created in 2004 and the firm in 2011 so my denial is credible. Thincat (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS It'd be wise not to create an article on American Legacy PAC. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since that pac was formed years after my username and I've never edited an article on them there is no issue. In this case the lead says " written, edited, and directed by Leroy Nguyen." Plus he is one of the lead actors and the user name is the same. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will be taking this to COIN. I do wonder why no one before User:Justlettersandnumbers noticed the apparent COI, or at least that the author is a single-purpose account.  It may be because assume good faith is a suicide pact, and because Do Not Bite is a commandment that editors tie themselves in knots to avoid.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * is correct, though sometimes other deficiencies lead to deletion, and no consensus that I'm aware of has made it so.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have repeatedly tried to delete drafts and articles due to COI, and I wind up losing those arguments.  I think that we are still operating with some unstated assumptions from 2005 that expansion of the encyclopedia is one of our objectives.  I think that improvement of the quality of the encyclopedia is even more important, but we often think that expansion is good, and therefore lack of notability should be the only reason to delete.  (Yes, I know that there are 14 deletion reasons.  I know.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment SmokeyJoe asked me to comment here i.r.t. the RfC, but I see we have now reached the point of COI discussion. We do not delete based on COI alone but we can and indeed do delete on the basis of something being advertising as advertising on Wikipedia is always against policy, which I think is the point my friend is making. I’d also like to point out that G11 is not the only deletion mechanism for spam. DEL4 and DEL14 (NOT violations) are equally valid reasons to delete. Native advertising exists and if this draft is that I am of the opinion policy already forbids it. I haven’t looked too hard at this draft, but I did want to give some general thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Black Scar Blues has received few reviews". Correct. And thus it fails NFILM. And it's spam. Seven declines to date, and no realistic chance in mainspace. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * delete per guy. that answered my next question. The important one. Does the thing meet inclusion criteria, after all this effort, and is there potential to find sufficient coverage to shoe it does? I think that is "no". The next question goes to the advertorial nature and whether it can be remedied via editing. I think the answer is while in may not be unambiguous advertising it is to far to be recovered and have meaningful information. New editors can be entirely within AGF and still easily make the mistake of producing ad copy instead of an encyclopedia article.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for the aforementioned reasons about notability. For interest's sake, the page creator has at last confirmed his connection to the topic. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep No one so far has been able to say that this is 100% not notable, in fact some have said that it might well be notable. Further, this is a draft not a mainspace article, so there is no requirement for the article to prove it's notability yet, if it's still in draft space. The author is updating the page with each revision so is actively working on the page and it's a draft so there should be no problem in keeping it. MFD isn't for deciding notability of active drafts and neither is it for snatching those drafts out of editor's hands without warning. The draft isn't harming the Wiki.Egaoblai (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete it is promotional content created by an editor with a professional and financial COI. Jbh  Talk  22:04, 18 June 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.