Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sean Chiplock

 __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. Primarily on G5ish grounds rather than notability; no prejudice against a good-faith editor requesting undeletion to work on this if they want to take responsibility. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sean Chiplock


BLP for a non-notable voice actor that has little likelihood of promotion. AdamF in MO (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC) "contribs) blocked MizukaS (talk"
 * No BLP violations. No offensive promotion.  Speedy close per WP:NMFD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although, User:TonyBallioni might like to comment of implications of the block of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. CSD G5 is inapplicable, as the draft was created before the block. No arguments have been advanced to delete this article because notability doesn't apply to drafts (which I believe is stupid, because a draft about an unnotable topic does not and cannot serve the project, but nothing can be done about this), and I looking it over, I don't see any reason to delete it now. Just let is be swept up in G13 in six months. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: While I believe that keeping this draft is technically the correct response, I have no opposition whatsoever to deletion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also,, speedy keep doesn't apply to erroneous deletion rationales (only to nominations for deletion where the nominator isn't actually calling for deletion), so please stop suggesting it in such cases. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there's been an RfC to clarify, but the first SK reason includes "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The examples make it seem like that applies to when the nominator doesn't actually want it to be deleted, but could also be read as having no valid deletion rationale. There's also #3 about being "so erroneous", but the wording of that one makes it seem like it applies to practically nothing that isn't already covered by vandalism. Eh. (Just sharing this because I wasn't sure, after reading this). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I interpreted it as the former. That also makes more sense, as interpreting it as no valid deletion rationale opens it up to being construed, as someone must define "valid" (and certainly whoever nominated it for deletion thought the rationale was valid). If the validity is truly a problem, the discussion will likely result in a WP:SNOWBALL close. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NMFD. The nominator presented an argument, just not an applicable one. Not near erroneous enough of a case for the speedy keep criteria to apply (though the criteria are much too vaguely written). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m thinking NMFD needs to be documented at SK as SK reason. The only valid reason I see to continue discussion here is the nominators potentially implied “BLP violation”.  Otherwise, there is not valid reason for deletion and a very clear RfC that says that notability alone is not a reason for deletion of a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to propose that change, although I doubt you'll find consensus for it (I can provide you with the reasons I'd oppose it if you're interested). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think NMFD is too broad and subjective to become a speedy keep criterion and, furthermore, I think such a consensus-seeking discussion would be more of a headache than its end result might be worth. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the only substance of the nomination is a question of notability, it should be speedy closed. The nomination contains the mention of "BLP" which invites investigation, but I see absolutely no BLP issue demanding action, the BLP stuff is sourced.  There really is nothing to discuss with regard to deletion.  The person has two current mentions in mainspace, there is definitely potential to merge from the draft, there is no reason for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as the product of misconduct. It isn't G5 because the sockpuppetry wasn't yet discovered, but that doesn't mean it wasn't sockpuppetry.  If a good-faith editor wants to work on it, they have seven days to request it.  The nominator didn't refer to sockpuppetry, but there was sockpuppetry.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "It isn't G5 because the sockpuppetry wasn't yet discovered, but that doesn't mean it wasn't sockpuppetry." This is a recent slightly creative interpretation against the black letter interpretation of the old G5 that is recently gaining momentum.  I don't disagree with it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do. G5 exists to enforce blocks. Edits by users evading blocks can be easily reverted, pages are not so easy to delete. This fixes that. The issue here is block evasion, not sockpuppetry. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The is no question that this was sockpuppetry. Block evasion with a second undeclared account is sock puppetry. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't block evasion, that's my whole point. He was blocked for sockpuppetry after he created this page, and indeed has not edited it with any account since that block. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, it wasn’t block evasion, but it was sock puppetry. To be blocked on discovery.  The puppet’s userspace has no right of leeway.  Delete.  I support this being covered by G5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Robert, the sockpuppery, and that there is no chance this person meets applicable notability criteria so wasting time on the draft is pointless. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 4 May 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.