Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lasersharp/Taipei Interactive English Club

 __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) 23:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Lasersharp/Taipei Interactive English Club


Abandoned draft that exists to promote a non-notable organization. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721040983,
 * GNG guidelines do not apply in User space. Also, previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/721038836does not allow the deletion drafts for being stale, only in cases of WP:NOT such as BLP violations. And I wouldn't call this advertising. Newimpartial (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of WP:STALE is not correct and such FAKEARTICLEs should not be kept indefinately. Under no universe will this topic ever meet WP:N and therefore the page merely advertises a club. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:STALE? It reads "drafts have no expiration date and thus, cannot and should not be deleted on the grounds of their age alone" and "GNG does not apply to drafts". I see no reason to treat this draft as propotional, as in WP:NOT, and it is less than three years old. No grounds for deletion.Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have indeed read WP:STALE and I do a lot of clean up work so I'm very familor with these issues. My I suggest you keep reading beyond the part you quoted to "For userspace drafts where notability is unlikely to be achieved, consensus is that they should not be kept indefinitely." Can you show this club meets WP:N? How long do you want to give this draft with no one working on it to turn into an article? If it will never get to be an article, it serves no purpose in the project. The first part protects drafts long enough for the author to have a chance at proving N. That protection should be past on this page. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since neither age alone nor non-notability is grounds for deleting a userspace draft, why don't you blank it (which is what WP:STALE calls for in this situation) and let it be. Policy is policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2017
 * Your statements suggests you don't agree with the policy we don't keep it indefinantly. Nothing you have argued while running interference against my cleanup MfD nominations gives any evidence any of these pages are suitable for keeping indefinately, or explains how this material in any way benefits Wikipedia. Please enlighten us all as to what you see of valieue in these pages, and stop wikilawyering cherry picked partial statements from assorted pages to frustrate efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty hilarious to me that you are accusing me of "cherry picking" or "wikilawyering". Read as a whole, WP:STALE and the WP:CONSENSUS decisions it cites communicate quite clearly that good reasons must be given for deleting userspace drafts, not for keeping them, that the reasons for deleting drafts are when they are "problematic" - such as WP:BLP and WP:NOT violations, but not in cases of WP:N or WP:RS issues - and that even problematic drafts are to be blanked, rather than deleted, in cases where that will solve the "problem".
 * When I see value in a particular draft, I say so, but there is also value in observing WP:CONSENSUS decisions; nominating drafts for deletions which could meet WP:N in future, or which are less than six months stale, are very clearly violations of WP:CONSENSUS on WP:STALE issues. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cherry-picking" is, indeed, the correct term, as you a) have confused Wikipedia's processes with some sort of legalistic system, and b) like other Wikilawyers, appear to think that if you find the right magic words you can win whatever game you're playing. --Calton | Talk 03:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Long stale promotional draft with zero hope of being an actual Wikipedia article. But to play by Newimpartial's rigid rules-based approach: "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5." and "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." --Calton | Talk 03:11, 1 June 2017 (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.