Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jayblackcar

 __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 as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 04:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayblackcar


WP:FAKEARTICLE. Possibly even a hoax, considering I couldn't find an artist named 'Jess' on Billboard's site, and none of the Billboard top 10 for the weeks from Feb 13, 2012 to current have 'My Dreams' as #9. Syrthiss (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Album will be released on 2012" (emphasis mine); clear violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE, Delete. Achowat (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum: 147 edits to this page, 1 File edit (uploading the image on this page), and 1 Gnomish Article space edit . Non-serious contributor. Achowat (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fake article; I agree with Achowat above that this user is using Wikipedia as a webhost. OSbornarfcontribs. 22:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute! This is not a fake article - it is a userspace draft, which we happen to encourage new editors to create rather than merely throwing them out into mainspace to get speedily deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought of that... except (1) they are still working on it after a month (not so bad) and (2) it has false information on it. I can't think of why they would be claiming that, and couldn't find a source article that they copied it out of if they were just trying out formatting. Syrthiss (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it turns out to be a hoax, I would have no problem is someone deleted it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to /Sandbox subpage as that is likely the best result for something which does not appear otherwise to violate userspace rules, it appears to be a snadbox-flavour page, and it is under one month old.  Collect (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a clear hoax and fake article. The information put there (ie the Charting of various singles) is clearly false. There is no benefit to keeping this page. Achowat (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Move to /Sandbox subpage. Looks like a new user trying out a few things. Better this than blundering into mainspace with a bad article. AGF I see no intent to mislead.  Tigerboy1966  17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The claims of the subject of that article (and judging by the quality/copyright of the image, the editor) have charted aren't an "intent to mislead" in your opinion? Achowat (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to User:Jayblackcar/sandbox--that seems like the obvious solution here. Sorry, but this is much ado about nothing. Can someone close this? Drmies (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose the close; the arguments for delete stand regardless of whether this is at User:Jayblackcar or User:Jayblackar/sandbox . It's still a Fake Article, and not in keeping with our policies concerning Userpages. Achowat (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I figured you were closing it since you removed the mfd notice from the page. Either you close it, or replace the mfd and update the links.  You can't play both editor and administrator in this.  I don't really care either way, but pick one.   To address Achowat's concern - I am of two minds on this.  Material that would be out of place on the userpage can fly in a sandbox, tho the sandbox header needs to be placed on the page.  Sandboxes however should not absolve all issues (BLP violations, for example) but that is probably something for VPP and not here. Syrthiss (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't think that's what Drmies is doing. S/He edited the page and is asking that (as the page that we are discussing has technically been removed) this MFD be closed. S/He's not closing it. I see nothing wrong with hir actions. Achowat (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I thought he was doing wrong, see User talk:Drmies. Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * [ec] You know what, I fail to see how this is such an enormous big deal. (Achowat, I appreciate the note--I didn't think I was violating any oaths here.) From FAKEARTICLE: "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template can be added to the top of the page to identify these)". So it does not violate our policies, as far as I can tell. But I'll acquiesce as much as I can, given my limited knowledge of coding, and, apparently, the rules of the game: I restored the mfd tag. Perhaps one of you would be so kind as to update the links or whatever. BTW, I saw that Floquenbeam left the editor a note--a real note, typed with their own fingers and composed in their brain, after the tag by the Image bot, an MfD template, a vandalism warning, and an ANI notification. Sometimes I think Chzz was right. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * further responses at User talk:Drmies. Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the page is not a "potentially valid article". It claims provably false information as an attempt to pretend Notability;WP:FAKEARTICLE applies. This rapper ("Jess") has not charted (Google search reveals nothing), definitely did not chart during the time he claims (provably false), there is no evidence of a record deal (again, a Google). There is nothing "potentially valid" about this article. Achowat (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete anyway, even in sandbox it contains misinformation and would never fly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stay the execution Not seeing any of the kiss-of-death violations that would flag this for immediate deletion. Not seeing any particular need for a sandbox that the user has been working on/with for a bit. We typically grant a very wide latitude in what users have on their userpage or userspace. Give a bit to see what the user is wanting to do with this article and an opportunity to respond to the inquiries. Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion at this time Agree, there does not seem to be enough give in the system if we have to delete everyone's sandbox.  Who knows, may be something in there will be an improvement to another article if not one that looks exactly like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - or are we Geocities and providing everyone with free web space now? (If so, woohoo, I'm movin' my stuff in next week.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTWEBHOST. The difference between your rationalle and this sandbox, is this one is putting forth the effort to look like a article.  Hasteur (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But, in looking so much like an article and containing clearly false information doesn't this run afoul to our policies concerning fake articles and hoaxes? Achowat (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fake. It's false. It's NOT F*CKING TRUE. Why the bloody hell are we up in arms about deleting FAKE INFORMATION? Ugh. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

*Keep for now. Because the potential problem with their page wasn't discussed with this new editor first, this MFD could seem overwhelming to them (no doubt in my mind this wasn't your intention, Syrthiss). It might be a more reasonable discussion to have sometime in the future, but there's no real harm in taking the pressure off this editor until they get their bearings. Especially now that it's buried deeper in their user subspace, there's no significant risk that someone is going to mistake this for a real article. Editors matter] ] (I still miss Walton One) . --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC) (See new comments, lower on this page)
 * Keep userspace draft, and therefore no good reason whatsoever not to let it fly. What possible harm does it do? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one of many pages turning us even more into a spam vector for SEO's. Please at least put noindex in the page.  I can't for the life of me figure out why we allow user pages to be indexed. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Userspace is always noindexed. 2. Userspace draft adds the noindex tag stealthly. 3. Read Wikibombing (SEO) to understand how we deal with these kinds of articles in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User space is in general not noindexed, unless something has changed very recently. I just googled "Hasteur", and got #3 hit as your WP user page.  Userspace draft tag inserting noindex sounds like an ok way to handle this mfd if the content is deemed to be a legitimate draft.  I have some concerns about the claims of false info in it and other issues raised, but will leave that to others.  IMHO the wikibombing essay doesn't go far enough and we should be noindexing much more than we currently do. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At least blank when not being actively edited, due to it looking like possible promotion, assuming that the album is real and is really about to be commercially released, and in anticipation of it meeting some notability subguideline. However, the inclusion of misinformation pushes me to say delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 days since the editor's last change "actively edited" enough for you? Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, since it looks like it could be use of Wikipedia to promote a non-notable album, and because it looks like this editor may be a SPA self promoting account, and because it looks like the page contains misleading information on singles (perhaps it is "place-holder" material?), I think he should blank the page before wlaking away from the computer, every time. Much preferably, he should establish himself as a bona fide contributer by contibuting a number edits elsewhere before creating material with which he has an obvious WP:COI.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Provisional delete User has moved page back to their user page, removed the mfd tag (now restored), and removed the __NOINDEX__ tag (now restored), all without responding to this mfd or comments on their talk page. If the user does not participate in this discussion or on their talk page, then my willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt is significantly reduced, and I'm more inclined to believe this is a fake article, rather than an experiment, and it should be deleted.  If they do respond, then my opinion will depend on what they have to say, and I'll modify this accordingly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2012 (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.