Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Blade18/sandbox

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Blade18/sandbox


CSD G10 was declined by an administrator, however, this is an unsourced biography of a living person claimed to be a porn star. It has existed since 2012 and constituted the only edits by the user space owner. Frankly, it should have been deleted under CSD G10 and could probably go under CSD U5 as well. But since speedy deletion has been declined, I will take to MfD. Safiel (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No, unsourced BLPs, even porn stars, are not G10-able.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've been tagging junk like this as G10 for quite some time, and until today there were no objections. For good reason, because an unhealthy share of them turned out to be wholly or partly spurious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose deletion in this case, but how is this possibly G10? G10 has nothing to do with "junk like this" - I'm a bit concerned there were no objections until today. A2soup (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I find unsourced pornbios to be of concern. Without a source, no way to immediately discern if the person actually is/was a porn actor or if the article is entirely bull **** meant to disparage a living person with false accusations. Frankly, I am considering bringing forth a proposal in the appropriate forum that would create a new branch of CSD G10, unsourced porn bios. A pornbio without at least one reliable source would be subject to speedy deletion under the new criterion. Unless a person actually is a porn actor, being called a porn actor would be considered disparagement by most people. If somebody wants to write a draft or article on their favorite porn star, they need to be told that it must have at least one reliable source from the very beginning. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to above comment Just to clarify, I don't oppose the inclusion of sourced porn bios, although I would prefer tighter inclusion standards than what now exists, i.e. I would limit them to performers who have achieved mainstream notoriety such as Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy. I just want to make clear I am not on an anti-porn crusade. Safiel (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While your concerns regarding unsourced material are valid, I did check to see if they actually were porn stars (there were a few nominations along with this one). If they weren't then I deleted them as G10. As a user subpage that hasn't been edited in five years I'm not opposed to deletion, but G10 was inappropriate in this case. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Safiel, a good way forward might be to alter/clarify WP:BLPPROD to apply to all namespaces. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC). And remove the pre March 18, 2010 grandfathering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 22 January 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.