Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Andwats/Don Fex

 __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: speedy delete. Was U1'd at the author's request &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Andwats/Don Fex


Stale draft on a non-notable individual. Unreferrenced BLP Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep per previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721040983,
 * GNG guidelines do not apply in User space. Also, previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721038836 does not allow the deletion drafts for being stale, only in cases of WP:NOT such as promotion or BLP violations, neither of which is the case here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I call foul. There is no justification to keep pages forever on Wikipedia about non-notable (in Wikipedia standards) people. If that is the case, we can just create pages in userspace about every person we know - with zero references - and expect them to be kept forever untouched. The second link does not justify your point, but does show there is considerable disagreement over where the line is on keeping junk. See also WP:STALE and in particular "For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely" Now I suggest people either provide some justifcation for how this draft is useful to the project, or vote to delete it. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't call foul on WP:CONSENSUS; the result of the second decision I linked was was, "There is consensus that userspace drafts should have no expiration date" and this policy is linked in the deletion criteria. You can't refer to a consensus decision as "considerable disagreement" and proceed to re-litigate each user page you want to delete, especially based on WP:GNG which, per another discussion, does not apply in Userspace. That's not WP:BOLD; it's just defying consensus in an uncool way. Newimpartial (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You ignored the consensus I quoted. You fail to give any valid reason this page should be kept to improve the project. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Legacypac the whole point of the discussions I linked, and the consensus resulting from them, is that it is not necessary to "provide a valid reason" to keep userspace pages - the responsibility is on people nominating them to find a valid reason to do so, which can be WP:BLP violations, WP:NOT cases, etc. The current page represents none of these, and a cursory search shows me that the subject here is, in fact, a locally notable theatre director, even though the userspace draft here is certainly not of a standard for publication in Wikipedia. WP:STALE says that problematic drafts may be blanked, though not deleted for good reason - this case doesn't even justify blanking under the policy, IMO. Once again, you don't get to re-litigate individual cases because you disagree with WP:CONSENSUS. That just isn't on. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * kindly don't invent ideas like the things you put in quotes. If you find the topic notable, prove it. Otherwise it sure looks like one of the thousands of user pages built to promote people (often artistic types) that fail GNG. There are so many we even have WP:YAMB Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "WP:GNG does not apply in to drafts." Period.
 * "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion."
 * Those are direct quotes from WP:STALE, and the latter is the only ground for deletion found there. I am not the one "inventing" things.Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No possible use for the encyclopedia, and therefore inappropriate user page content. I agree with Legacypac that its time we started energetically and systematically removing pages like this. The appropriate guideline is WP is the fundamental pillar: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG guidelines do not apply in User space. Wrong, or at least wildly overstated: if a draft does not and CANNOT meet GNG, it's not going to ever be a mainspace article; if a draft not going to ever be a mainspace article, then there's no point in keeping it around. And that's not even counting the unreferenced BLP issue -- Newimpartial fails to realize or neglects to mention that being an unreferenced BLP is a straight-up PROD criteria. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 1 June 2017 (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.