Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel TIsdale




 * 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  userfied to User:Daniel TIsdale/Daniel Tisdale as draft of a possible article, not suited for a userpage. I will add to his talk page a welcome and some pointers. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC) User:Daniel TIsdale/Daniel Tisdale

User:Daniel TIsdale
Relisted. harej 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Article in user space. Completely unsalvageable, as I have not been able to find a single reliable source, Another user and I have concluded that since there're no sources, this is not worthy of moving into article space or even keeping in userspace. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to mainspace; subject appears notable.
 * I wonder sometimes about this sort of MFD. Might not the information that a user provides about himself aid in collaboration sometimes? E.g., if you are seeking assistance on an article related to visual artistry, and you have seen Tisdale's userpage, then you know that he is someone who may be able to lend assistance.


 * True, some users might just be seeking self-promotion. But Others may just be starting their editing careers and view setting forth their qualifications on the subject matters which they'll be writing about as a logical first step, even though it isn't required by our rules.


 * Basically, I am wondering whether we might encounter unintended consequences by deleting these types of pages whenever we see them. We might end up throwing out the baby (i.e. useful, good faith stuff aimed at helping the project) with the bathwater (the spam). Is what we intend to accomplish by doing so worth the potential downsides?


 * Lastly, what is the difference between this type of page and one in which a user presents the same information through 300 userboxes, which presumably would be allowable? I apologize if these arguments have been raised before somewhere; but I've always wondered by we are so quick to delete résumés and biographies in userspace. Tisane (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep In this particular case, it would be worth moving into article space if there were sources. Since it was only recently added, perhaps he is looking for them. There was no attempt to communicate with him or help him before the bare nomination, which I do not think is the way to deal with potential new contributors.    DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * looking a little further, I think its a typo: the person meant is Daniel TISDALE not TLSDALE.  Under that name, I find there are indeed sources. Without going any deeper, Google News Archive has a New York Times review of a painting of his, accompanied in the print version with a reproduction, Newsday has an aeticle verifying a solo exhibition--see the excerpt in the G News search, .Newsday again has a verification of  a group exhibition.    DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked up "Tisdale" not "Tlsdale" (that's actually a TI not a TL). And none of those came up. 0.o Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you;ve seen them, do you still want to delete? DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See the masthead. According to AALBC, Harlem World Magazine, which Tisdale publishes, has a circulation of 60,000. Tisane (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: The userspace draft is currently an unreferenced BLP. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Firstly, this is clearly a pseudo-article rather than a user page, and should be judged accordingly. (Nobody above has denied this, but I thought I would make it explicit.) There are certainly mentions of this person to be found, but none that I have seen comes anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. DGG introduces his Google results with the words "Without going any deeper...". Well, we have to go deeper: merely stating that a Google search has turned up mentions of the subject is not enough. Looking deeper I find that none of the mentions given constitutes substantial coverage. The New York Times article to which DGG links makes just one passing mention of Tisdale. Neither of the Newsday pages which DGG links to even mentions Tisdale. These two pages are abstracts, and the full articles may mention him, but the fact that in neither of them is he prominent enough to be mentioned in the abstracts suggests he probably does not get substantial coverage there. What is more, even according to DGG all these articles do is verify that Tisdale has exhibited: of course he has, all professional artists and many amateur artists do so; this is no guarantee of notability. I am not sure what the point of Tisane's quoting the circulation figure of Harlem World Magazine is. Is the point "Wow! a circulation of 60,000! Pretty big: must be notable!" Or is it "A circulation of only 60,000? Really, since any significant magazine has circulation in the hundreds of thousands region, this one is pretty un-notable." Either way it is not relevant: notability is not inherited, and to establish notability of Tisdale we need to have significant publication of information about him in reliable sources, no matter how large or small the magazine he publishes. Ten Pound Hammer has got it right in the nomination: I too have not been able to find a single reliable source giving more than an insignificant mention. Since those arguing for "keep" have not done so either, I suspect there aren't any. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per JamesBWatson: seems to lack sufficient notability for an article. If anyone seriously disagrees, feel free to move this into mainspace and take it to AFD, where it's likely to get more attention. Robofish (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that wouldn't be considered disruptive or forum-shopping, given that there's an MfD pending? Tisane (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am disturbed about the increasing tendency to judge material in user space using the same criteria as in the main space. This does not have to have sources, if the author is planning to work on it to make an article. "lack sufficient notability for an article" is not a reason to delete it. It merely says that this material is not yet ready to be an article. This has only been around for a month. I have lots of odd pieces on information on people in my user space that have been around for years. I may get around to expanding them and creating an article sometime. Also has the author been notified? All of this would lead me to suggest a strong keep. However "The userspace draft is currently an unreferenced BLP" does raise issues. Then, is there anything in the article that is likely to be defamatory? It does not seem so. I therefore come down to a straight keep, and hope that the people worried about this keep on trying to contact the user who wrote it. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriate to consider mainspace standards when considering what amount to articles in the user space. In general we are more lenient here, but if there's almost no chance of meeting notability standards, then we do delete on that basis sometimes.  As Cassandra points out below, userspace is very much in Google.  We can't let it become a vehicle to avoid AfD standards entirely. Gigs (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bduke. Tisane (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to User:Daniel TIsdale/Daniel Tisdale and tag as a userspace draft, or incubate if other editors are interested in working on it as an article. Although it's not currently in article space, the page came up as the third hit when I googled his name so it could easily mistaken for an article by a reader, which I think makes BLP concerns of verifiability valid. As the user has made no article space contributions and has been inactive since creating this page on 10 January I don't think it's intended as an intro for collaborative purposes, so it seems to be in the wrong place at the moment. We can only guess at the user's intentions but if we move it to somewhere it can't be mistaken for an article, it'll be there for him to decide what he wants to do with it if he returns. Cassandra 73 (talk) 09:51, 20 February 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.