Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Brad Perrott

 __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. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 02:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Brad Perrott

 * – (View MfD)
 * ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 03:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Salvio 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

attempt from now banned undeclared paid editor  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep That is not a valid reason for deletion. If another editor can develop this into a valid article, that is a good result. If not, G13 will deal with it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The fact that the subject may be notable is a reason not to salt it. It is not a reason not to delete.  As written, this draft is tainted by promotionalism to the point where it needs to be blown up and started over.  If a neutral editor wants to work on it now, they can blank it and restart it, but otherwise it might as well be deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * G13 willl deal with it in 6 months; in th meantime, perhaps the UPE will tell their client, the material has not been deleted but is still under consideration, I don't have to refund your money.  That's the sort of problem we have rules for UPE against. Material submitted in deliberate defiance of well known site policy is inherently disruptive. Possibly the best way to deal with it might be speedy,  and some admins are now in effect doing just that usually by stretching the meaning of G11, but  until w have more explicit  consensus I prefer to let the community decide.  Asfor doing it here, XfD can delete for any good reason, and its up to the people in the discussion to decide.  DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You write as it it were admitted or confirmed that this was paid editing. I don't see it. The creator was blocked for promotional editing, and I think that was a stretch. This might have been UPE, but it might well not have been. In any case there have been several attempts to make UPE a reason for deletion at MfD or AfD -- none have achieved consensus, and I for one would oppose another. I don't see any real way in which this draft is "tainted". I think it might well be the start of a perfectly acceptable article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 17:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [chat] ||  03:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC) , if you think an acceptable article is possible, and are willing to make one, I will withdraw the MfD.
 * But more generally, since there has not yet be a clear consensus ofn whether to remove UPE, I don't see how we can deal with it now except case by case.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete MAYBE there'd be a case if it was already in article space that we should just stubbify to remove the UPE. But it's a draft, and the user is blocked. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 21:25, 1 October 2020 (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.