Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth (2nd nomination)

 __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 userfy to User:Rebbing/Drafts/Gemma Booth. As someone is prepared to work on it, this is no longer an abandoned draft. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth


This was listed at MFD, deleted by WP:U5 and appealed to Deletion Review. The result of that review was to overturn the original deletion and relist it here at MFD. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the result. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mildly promotional, no sources except the subject's own website. Google gives Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Vimeo, and other hits like that. No hope this will become an article in the foreseeable future. Only edits were made over 6 years ago by an editor whose only 2 edits were on this draft. Unnecessary clutter. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanking would have been acceptable, and much less of a hassle for everybody concerned; but since we're here again anyway, delete as abandoned. Wouldn't survive in mainspace - most admins would push the button if it were tagged A7 - and there's no reason to keep it around in userspace without someone to champion it. —Cryptic 16:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the editor returns, after five years, or anyone else for that matter, can request restoration and continue if they think it's worth working on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support adoption by User:Rebbing. I don't even care if we move it to userspace or draftspace, better that than deleting and having Rebb rightly request restoration and go through more WP:BURO here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I'm absolutely not trying to prove anything here. I agree with you that stale skeleton drafts (as this was) should be removed to discourage "promotional dumping." I just happened to take an interest in the subject.  Rebb  ing   19:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Subject may be notable (covered in a few RSes, mainly for discovering a model, and maybe elsewhere but it's a common name). Because of the way this got here, there is no clear policy/guideline issue that this draft is claimed to violating (as a standard nomination would have).  Could someone tell me what the issue is that we are addressing here?  I don't spend much time in MfD. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a five year old promotional draft that isn't likely to be an article in the near future (or perhaps ever). You could say "ignore it/black it/whatever and keep it around" but for those who want to discourage editors in the future from simply dumping promotional material here, it's harder to discourage if they know there's a chance it can continue to hang around. It's especially odd since some pages even tagged as noindexed still pop by google which is more than enough to encourage these "drafts". If the goal is to encourage useful editors, that also requires ensuring that people who just dump drafts for the wrong reason are actually given a signal not to do it or else the useful ones will leave rather than deal with loads of nonsense. Even then, the creator (or anyone else for that matter) can always request restoration I supposed if there's legitimate interest in creating something even if no one has found evidence that this person is notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Move (adopt): I can't find enough plausibly-reliable material online to make this more than a stub, and the subject appears to fall far short of either WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE, but I was intrigued to note that two of Ms. Booth's portraits are in the permanent collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London ("the National Portrait Gallery of London"?). In lieu of deleting this draft—which I agree would be reasonable—I propose that it be moved to my user space as User:Rebbing/Drafts/Gemma Booth. I assume I won't be able to rescue it, in which case I'll blank it within a reasonable timeframe, but I wouldn't mind trying.  Rebb  ing   03:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Does WikiProject Art or the like have a wanted listed for all artists in the National Portrait gallery? It would seem like a reasonable drive to have so you could get more eyes with that kind of a project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that I can find, but, once this is settled, I think I'll ask over at WikiProject Fashion and WikiProject Photography for sourcing ideas. Thanks for the suggestion.   Rebb  ing   19:48, 2 April 2016 (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.