Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jasonmmisner/Black Hammock Band


 * 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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw my G11 as well. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jasonmmisner/Black Hammock Band
Spam page created in userspace by single-purpose account. Group has one self-released album and zero importance. Chubbles (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Has some minimal notability in the Orlando area. If userspace had the notability requirement that mainspace has, it might be told to be userfied. Well, it is starting off in userspace, and so notability is not the issue.  Collect (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the easiest person to convince of the band's notability, so if there's evidence out there, I'd love to hear it. But the group has 100 Google hits, only one of which is possibly even close to a reliable source, and I have very strong doubts about whether there is significant offline coverage. The user has no edits outside of this page and his own userpage, and hasn't touched it in two months. What's the usual time limit on these things? It's written like spam, and it has to be, because the group isn't actually popular. Also, the creator of the page is in the band; Jason Misner is the drummer. So throw COI on top (no surprise...). Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still -- notability is not a requirement in userspace -- and COI does not apply in userspace AFAICT. No notability in six months? Different matter.  Collect (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, withdraw it, then. For what it's worth, my argument was never based on notability; that's a concept I have become increasingly suspect of, because it has no real-world relevance outside Wikipedia. But this is clearly blatant advertising hosted by Wikipedia for more than two months. Damn, I wish I was afforded this much good faith... Chubbles (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * G11 Never mind that it's in userspace, it's still pretty blatant advertising. This wouldn't stand a chance in article space, why give it any slack in userspace? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is not a spam in that it only appears in one place. It is not even advertisement like, so as a user sub page it can be kept, for at least a year or two. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the user has NO OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS. If this were an established user, ok, fine, whatever, but Wikipedia is not free webhosting for posting your band's website. --B (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have placed a template on the page for now. - Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've withdrawn this. Chubbles (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2009 (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.