Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Scott Knox

 __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. kingboyk (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Scott Knox

 * – (View MfD)

WP is not a web host, not even in draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 11:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral per (doh! I should've checked how soon this was nominated) (was ) as no possibility of plausibly passing WP:GNG if this were ever submitted to AfC for moving to Main: namespace. Doug Mehus  T · C  13:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I, like Dmehus, see no hope of notability being established for this person, but I don't think the draft needs to be deleted right now. Nominating a newcomer's autobiography for deletion two days after they created it seems bitey, even if the newcomer's action appears to be webhosting. Glades12 (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is not the start of an article. This is something they should be posting on their social media.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were an actual attempt at writing an article, I would be in favour of leaving it for G13 - GNG doesn't apply to draftspace. However, this is just jokey, social media type stuff that is clearly not intended to be a serious contribution to the encyclopedia. And there is some negative stuff in there, which I think is just self-deprecating humour, but it's possible that this page was created to mock the subject, which would make it a BLP violation. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, my preference would be for WP:CSD as well, but I don't really see a policy-based reason for deletion here. Note I was originally "delete," but given how soon this was nominated, it does seem kind of bitey to nominate for deletion in non-indexed Draft space. Let the bots do their thing in 6 months. ;-) Doug Mehus T · C  17:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I see a WP:BLP violation, assuming the creator of the article is the same as the subject of the article. It's more or less self-deprecating humour; I do the same thing to/about myself, to make light of certain 'ticks'. Doug Mehus T · C  17:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's probably a self-deprecating joke, but we have no way of knowing that the subject actually created it, so we should err on the side of caution when it comes to WP:BLP. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but my preference would be for Oversight to be engaged, and then it can be deleted if the subject doesn't respond to Oversight within a week or two. Failing what, what about soft delete, so WP:REFUND can apply and the processing administrator, assuming a request is made, can decide whether to undelete to the user's userspace or just to e-mail it to the user. And even if "soft delete" only applies to article space, since we have no rules and all, the prevailing consensus of this discussion can decide to let "soft delete" apply to this draft on an exception basis. In short, IAR is, arguably, our most important rule in that it lets us do whatever we like in certain conditions, bounded by our suprapolicy that is common sense. With "soft delete," we'd have that all taken care in that potential WP:BLP concerns would be respected. Doug Mehus T · C  17:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy based reason is that WP is an encyclopedia, not a social website--one of our WP:FIVE basic principles, and nan integral part of the formal policy WP:NOT. We can -- and should -- delete anything that does not contribute to the encyclopedia, though we cannot do it in all cases by speedy.  Some things may be too trivial to bother, but in this case there's also a problem with BLP: we cannot assume the writer of the material is the subject, any more than we can with a straight article. People can write joking articles about a friend, but there is no way we can possibly know whether their friend will treat it as a joke or be offended. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC) �
 * Delete, net negative to keep it on here. I see no reason to not be bitey, as long as it is clear why it was deleted.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  03:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Doesn't need deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignore. Harmless worthless stuff in draftspace is not worth the MfD discussion.  Leave for G13.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Channeling my inner, who is adept in finding compromise solutions for all participants, it seems to me the main concern here is that this draft is (a) about a real person and (b) it's uncited, which would make it a BLP issue if in Main: namespace. As to the actual content, I'm not quite sure it rises to a BLP issue given the relatively harmless and jokey nature of the content. Nevertheless, there's really no real reason for outright deletion, at least not one that requires a match and accelerant to G13. So, I think any potential BLP issue(s) could be solved through (a) editing and, as required and at the discretion of the closing administrator, (b) revision deletion, assuming that's not too much work. Doug Mehus T · C  17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP actually applies across all namespaces fyi. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that; I wasn't sure and thought that it might, but it's good to have that clarified. Good point, though, about . What's our policy on that, do we assume good faith that the editor is not impersonating a subject, or do we assume that they are until they file a request with Oversight to verify their identity? Doug Mehus T · C  19:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. If there is a concern that  is not Scott Knox, then shouldn't they be blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * we have no way of know one way or another. Given the  lack of notability and great unlikelihood of an article, I don't see any need to determine this.  DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 19 February 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.