Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Charismamata/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. ✗ plicit  03:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Charismamata/sandbox

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Does not meet WP:BIO; most references are WP:PRIMARY or illegitimate; content is copy and paste of the original edit from User talk:Garydoherty1976/sandbox, and both accounts are blocked for sockpuppetry per Sockpuppet investigations/Charismamata; likely WP:COI or undisclosed WP:PAID editing. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotion by sockpuppeteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  16:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion on the basis of being sockpuppet generated content, unless requested or agreed by a WP:SPI clerk or better, because it means mfd being run as shadow SPI clerking. Ask User:TheresNoTime, the blocking checkuser. Note that WP:COI and WP:PAID, and even WP:UPE content are not deletion reasons even in mainspace (see WT:Deletion policy), which means they are even less of a reason in userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If this page is a copy of User talk:Garydoherty1976/sandbox, then that page deletion was a bad U5, because this page is a plausible draft. User:Athaenara? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whichever is a copy of which, both copies are advertisements, and no, we don't let self-promoters use Wikipedia for that. It's eligible for db-g11.  – Athaenara  ✉  15:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is G11-eligible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The subject, Gary Doherty, Irish TEDx speaker and personal coach (read promotion angles), is plausibly notable. However, this draft contains 63 mostly bad quality references. When starting a WP:BLP with promotional aspects, I strongly advise following advice at WP:THREE, and not WP:Reference bombing.
 * Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice that some of the references could have been ok, and noting that the current author is blocked and this draft would be massively more work to rescue than for someone to start again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2021 (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.