Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Steve Humble

 __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. If the user returns and wants to work on it then it can be restored. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Steve Humble


The more I look at this draft the more I think WP:TNT is required. It's quite possible that the gentleman has notability, but the sheer number of spam links in the references to sellers of his own books and the fact that this is a blatant WP:COI piece makes me think that this piece is advert oriented and/or something to allow the gentleman to seek to use Wikipedia to enhance rather than record his notability. Such things need to go and the contributing eponymous author needs to be advised to stand away from his apparent autobiography. This draft in this condition is the wrong place to start to create an article on the gentleman

Much advice has been given, but not followed. Additionally there is a (currently open) Sockpuppetry report at Sockpuppet investigations/S.P.Numbers. Fiddle  Faddle  19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with WP:TNT. The only effort the editor has really made is to WP:BOMBARD the page making it incredibly tedious to judge the merits of the sources. When sampling they typically only mention the subject in passing if truly at all. If this subject is indeed notable, then it will be remade by someone else. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and also delete Draft:Steve Humble (aka Dr Maths), a substantial duplicate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment while the other draft does not have the same spam issues, I do not see it as a useful building block for a new draft or a future article. I have no objection if you want to add it to this nomination (and 'do that paperwork'), but wonder if it might be a distraction. It may be that we leave it lie and the closing admin chooses to make a WP:BURO deletion assuming this discussion closes as deletion.  Fiddle   Faddle  19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In view of the !vote by Dream Focus, below, I suggest that the second draft be left out of this discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  19:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The page has no tag saying its being considered for deletion. He list a page that mentions him in the news at, but the New York Times bit is  hidden behind a paywall.  A quick search shows this  Is that a reliable source?   D r e a m Focus  19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think you may be confused. There is a proper deletion notice on Draft:Steve Humble. That has been since the start of this discussion. The discussion remains valid even if the notice there is removed. The original author has been notified correctly. There is not one on Draft:Steve Humble (aka Dr Maths), and it is not, certainly currently, a part of this discussion.  Fiddle   Faddle  19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. You have to scroll down quite a bit to see it so I hadn't noticed it there.   D r e a m Focus  20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A feature of the AFC Helper Script is that it keeps "article things" and "Review things" in separate notional compartments. I'm not entirely surprised that you missed it. The gentleman might well actually be notable, as I believe I said int he nomination. My contention is that this draft simply will not produce a valid article on him. You are more than welcome to adopt it and shake it into submission. Were this AFD on a main namespace article rather than MFD on a draft I would support your argument as a rationale to keep the thing. Fiddle   Faddle  20:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to delete a draft that can be edited into an article.  D r e a m Focus  20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The challenge is that the current contributing editor, who is, at present, probably the sole person who has any interest in the draft, is unlikely to pick it up and run with it well, and seems unwilling to hear advice. I appreciate your stance. I wonder if you might attempt either or both of a word in his ear and/or grabbing hold of the draft yourself, or with others. Produce or show me a great draft and I will withdraw the nomination like a shot. Fiddle   Faddle  20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that and, both of whom have edited this draft significantly have been indeffed as confirmed sockpuppets of  who is blocked for a shorter term.  Fiddle   Faddle  22:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Autobiography. Userfy to User:Steve Humble/Autobiography, tag with userpage, and allow it to stay on condition that he commits to cease all sockpuppety, and contributes to the project away from things relating directly to himself.  Otherwise, delete with reference to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Uncertain I don't think it's hopless. (by whichI mean that he might be notable).But in practice, someone would need to start it over.  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a slight variation on my sentiments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Far too many issues not addressed and likely will never be addressed. Blow it up and start over if really notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 24 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.