Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JoeMolloyShaman

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JoeMolloyShaman


Advert, out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete classic WP:FAKEARTICLE maybe U5 Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete if my Speedy Deletion nomination is declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is factual in tone, not promotional, and for all either of you know, may be an accurate depiction of a notable person. More likely it is a description of a non-notable person, but there is no need to decide that now, and the kind of source search needed to decide it usefully has not been done. I have declined the speedy. No accurate policy-based reason for deletion has been provided. However, move to a userspace draft page  to make it clear that this is not a proper user page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a notable person it belongs in mainspace. But it's clearly not a notable preson. Amisom (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you know that this person is not notable, much less that he is not notable, ? Have you done a through search for sources? You didn't mention such a search above. If not, how can you possibly know that with confidence? and as for  we have lots of drafts about notable topics not yet ready for mainspace. That is indeed the purpose of user space drafts and of draft space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. But if your search came up with any notable sources that I missed do pleaes feel free to share them? Amisom (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't, because, as pr WP:NMFD it isn't relevant here -- notability is not up for discussion here. There mere possibility that this might be a notable subject is enough to indicate that it should be kept pending durthr developmet, or if it is abandoned, G13 will deal with it in due course. How exactly is this promotional? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Misapplication of WP:NMFD to a userpage pretending to be an article. G13 will not "take care of it" because it's not a Draft space page or a submitted to AfC userpage. User:DESiegel you need to reevaluate your vote here. Legacypac (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to reevaluate my view here, and I stand by it. I did write above: I would do such a move at once, except that moving a page during a deletion discussion is strongly frowned on.


 * It's not relevant? I wonder why you mentioned it then? ("This, ... for all either of you know, may be an accurate depiction of a notable person"). It is cleary promotional and I think you know that. It clearly fails WP:PROMO, advertising this person's services and locations of work and useds puffery ("more satisfactory, harmonious and effective lives"). Stop hectoring me. Amisom (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the subject is or is not notable is not, and should not be, relevant at an MfD discussion. However, whether the subject plausibly could be notable is quite relevant. It may be that this should be edited for improved tone, but that is not the same as the sort of blatant promotionalism justifying deletion. It is not hectoring to respond to views pointing out what I perceive to be their failure to conform with policy. It is particularly not hectoring to respond to comments pretty clearly addressed to me. If others disagree, then the consensus will not favor my view. I am careful to comment on opnions expr4essed in civil tones, not on contributors, as I hope and trust others will do. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Whether the subject plausibly could be notable is relevant. The subject could not plausibly be notable, because they are not notable. Thanks for agreeing. Amisom (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with both your premise and your conclusion (which does not follow from your premise) above. And I suspect you knew perfectly well that I was not agreeing with you in my previous comment. I think my views are clear here, perhaps others will comment. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I said that a non-notable person coudl not "plausibly be notable". And you claim you disagree. Go troll someone else now. Amisom (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. Amisom (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. If they were an active contributor I would not object to this, but it is clear that they are not and were never active, so it does not need to stay. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2018 (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.