Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwisdx/Stevie Stone

 __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:  Redirect to Stevie Stone. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amwisdx/Stevie Stone

 * Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Time stamp for relisting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Page on another non-notable rapper. No sources, would be PROded in mainspace. Editor that created it is long gone. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is irrelevant for drafts. No evidence that editor is gone, there's no retired tag on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.70 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "No evidence the editor is gone" - Their contribs say otherwise..... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect per above and below. Kinda disagree with it but fuck it. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

*Delete -Non notable rapper fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This nomination statement is either really incompetent or really dishonest.
 * "non-notable ... no sources" - Really? I see a citation on the fact about having an album on a national chart. You know, the fact that makes this subject meet WP:NBAND.


 * "would be PROded in mainspace" - Well, go ahead and PROD it then.


 * Redirect to Stevie Stone and trouts for the nominator and delete !voter, who either didn't even bother to look at the page (much less investigate the subject) or deliberately misrepresented it. A2soup (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - There's nothing incompetent or dishonest about it - I somehow just didn't find anything and until now wasn't even aware they had an article .... which meets GNG, Well seeing as we have the article redirecting this would be pointless as the creator's buggered off anyway..... – Davey 2010 Talk 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, just be more careful in the future - you can't always take the nom's word for it. Redirecting is preferable to deletion in cases like this for two reasons. 1) If the creator returns, they get the message to work on the mainspace article instead of the message that their work is not valued, and 2) it saves everyone's time since we don't need to have this discussion at MfD and an admin doesn't need to close it. In addition, there is no benefit to deletion not also served by redirecting. A2soup (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Userspace Page under debated created July 2012
 * Sept 2012 the present mainspace page created as a redirect
 * 5 May 2013 User:Joshhhjonesss creates a page over the redirect. (and next links)
 * Several hours later User:Qwyrxian redirects the page to the label saying "Undid revision 553704212 by Joshhhjonesss (talk) person does not appear to be notable per WP:ENT)"
 * User:Speedfish recreates the page
 * 6 May 2013 User:Qwyrxian (Reverted 3 edits by Speedfish (talk): This still does not overcome the prior AfD discussion--non-notable.)"

I've not been able to find the AfD but User:Qwyrxian is an experienced editor and did not make it up. At the time this userpage was created and for the rapper was not notable per AfD. I suspect this page is a WP:UP of the deleted article, but can't quite prove that. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirecting is not keeping the content, so it doesn't matter even if it is a copy of the deleted article. It's also worth noting that, experience or not, Qwyrxian was wrong. WP:ENT is not the appropriate guideline for a rapper - the appropriate guideline is WP:MUSIC (WP:ENT even refers you to it). If this draft is indeed the deleted page, it has a cited claim of a charted album that makes the subject meet WP:MUSIC (seriously, how does everyone miss this?). So the original deletion/redirecting was wrong. A2soup (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion at the end indicates a lot of new facts but I'd like more discussion to get a clearer consensus following all this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First response should have been "Blank with Inactive userpage blanked. The subject is plausibly notable, the page has one weak reference in a reliable source.  It is foolish, a net negative, to try to force a considered answer on borderline drafts that are inactive.  NB. Leaving it unblanked causes very little harm, and if someone returned to unblank, their return to the project should be consider a good thing.  Deletion where this is doubt is just alienating to old users.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stevie Stone, obviously, per Davey2010. Legacypac's "new facts", I fail to find their importance.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2016 (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.