Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg Bartholomew

 __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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg Bartholomew
Userfied version of article on non-notable person. I informed the user on his talk page some time ago. Should be deleted according to WP:FAKEARTICLE. Fabian Hassler (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if Greg Bartholomew is not deemed notable enough to warrant an article yet, he may someday achieve such notability as a composer. There are articles in the media that confirm that he is, indeed, a composer:, , and , for example. I don't believe this content is problematic enough to be considered a violation of WP:USER. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you provide are passing mentions; there is not enough here for Greg Bartholomew to pass Notability (people). A Google News Archive search returns solely passing mentions and irrelevant results about people who share the same name. This userspace draft is basically unsourced&mdash;I do not consider the three external links provided in the "Reviews & References" section to be sufficient because they are all passing mentions; further, none of the content in the article is sourced, so per WP:BLP, this should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a user page, not an article. The notability and sourcing requirements don't apply to it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If this individual is non-notable, retaining the userspace draft is pointless, which is why I provided the Google News Archive search link above. An unsourced userspace draft about a biography of living person is as bad as one in the mainspace. Thus, this unsourced page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, which states "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. Wikipedia is not a free web host and private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion" (mine emphasized). Because this userpage draft violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because no one has worked on this draft for a year, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This wasn't disputed content before this MfD, nor was it ever previously deleted. There has never been an Wikipedia article Greg Bartholomew. Also, even though this user page has not been edited for almost a year, the user has edited within the mainspace within the past month. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. I have emphasized the more applicable part of WP:FAKEARTICLE. The userspace draft as written is meant to be part of the encyclopedia; however, due to its inadequate sourcing, it would not survive very long there. The user has not just edited the mainspace within the past month&mdash;he has link spammed the mainspace. All of this user's edits have been promotional (link spamming and creating this autobiography). There is no need to keep this page for a noncontributing spammer. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Cunard.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 22:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE. A small amount of the material could be retained if rewritten in a "this is my user page for collaboration with other editors" style, however this is a perfect example of a fake article and fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is reasonable to give authors of draft articles some time to pull together evidence of notability, or even to let a subject accumulate notability when there is evidence of growing coverage. But with no changes to the page since August of last year, neither of those conditions appears to apply in this case. --RL0919 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 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.