Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coral135/Blackbook2




 * 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  blank as a compromise; arguments in favour of keeping this page outright remain less convincing. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Coral135/Blackbook2
Sandboxed article that was previously speedy deleted multiple times and salted at the Blackbook2 title. Discussion at User talk:Coral135/Blackbook2, User talk:SchuminWeb, User talk:Coral135, and User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid has a strong lean towards a failure on the notability front, and likely not going to attain notability in the foreseeable future. Thus nominating the deletion of this page that the editor has stopped working on as a housekeeping matter, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a vehicle for promotion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems to have been created for promotional purposes. At the very least tag with userspace draft, which I've now done. –xenotalk 13:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Marked as "draft" and under a month since creation (thus "stopped working on" is a teeny bit of an overstatement at best.) Notability is, morevoer, not a requirement in userspace.   As for using a crystal ball as to future notability - that is far beyond the ken of MfD. Collect (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank while not being worked on, leaning towards Delete as promotion, written by a single purpose account who I suspect has an undeclared conflict of interest. See Single-purpose account and Conflict of interest.  Wikipedia is very sensitive about being used for promotion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may not be currently notable, it isn’t obvious that it can never be notable. The page of no-indexed, and clearly indicates it is not a Wikipedia article, so the promotional value is limited. It’s a close call; if the editor were otherwise contributing to WP, I’d push for a strong Keep, but as the editor is recently active, there’s potential. SPhilbrick  T  13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The website may or may not become notable, but per WP:CRYSTAL, that is not for us to decide. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." (mine emphasized) This userspace copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to promote the subject of the article; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a non-notable website violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with User:Sphilbrick's statement above. I would also say, in response to User:Cunard, that policies like WP:CRYSTAL are primarily about article space. This is a user space draft. A draft might not meet criteria such as notability; what's important is that it's not defamation or copyvio or so on. Plus, it's NOINDEX, so it's not really going to help them advertise or anything. There really is no harm in keeping this; that is why I oppose deletion. --SJK (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When I pointed to WP:CRYSTAL in my reply to Sphilbrick, I meant that the possibility that the company would become notable in the future is not a reason to keep the userspace draft. Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, this draft is disruptive because, written by a single-purpose account, it circumvents the repeated deletion of the article at Blackbook2. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2010 (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.