Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MaraudingChimpanzee

 __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. --RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MaraudingChimpanzee
Abandoned copy of a draft page. WP:UP or WP:FAKEARTICLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 05:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question: This is a draft page, but not a "fake". This was an article being worked on in user space for a mainspace article, DFTBA Records. It appears this user did not want it to be deleted and did not know it could be userfied - On June 29 it appears it was userfied by Ged  UK  after it was discussed on the talk page. (see diff at moved DFTBA Records to User:MaraudingChimpanzee: Userfiying) - not sure why it was not placed on a subpage, perhaps  Ged  UK  could shed some light - I will/have notified them of this duiscussion so they can voice an opinion. So the question is - should this just be moved onto a subpage. Seems the user is off and on, not fully gone, here, pluse this has been worked on by another user. As many often say - There is no deadline, especially in user space. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was over a year ago, I'm afraid I don't remember why I put it in their main userpage as opposed to a subpage, but that doesn't really make any difference. Ged  UK  21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and relocate to a sub-page: Based on the above comments by Ged  UK  my thought is to just move it, along with the edit history as is required, to a subpage. I see no harm at all in this userfied article being available to be worked on. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving this will not change the problem addresed in the nomination. Abandoned for over a year is not being worked on. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against moving this page to a subpage. WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST would still be applicable. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE says, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: You know I used the exact same comment at MfD's in the past and was chastised for it. If one does enough research you will find userfied articles that have been untouched for 4 (or maybe more) years. You will find userfied articles that were userfied to the subject of the articles userspace where they keep it and add information about themselves to. It isn't that I, personally, feel that every little userfied article needs to exist but it is that the overall consensus that has been used over and over that says There is no deadline. I also know that consensus can change and if that is what is going on certainly, by all means, lets all revisit the discussion about the word "indefinitely" as used in Userfication of deleted content that states ...content inappropriate for the mainspace should not be kept indefinitely in user space. Also along with that would be to define "long-term" in the use of being used solely for long-term archival purposes. One discussion on these terms in 2008 resulted in a lot of varied thoughts and nobody could agree on "how long is too long" - maybe now, based on this discussion, editors can. (i.e -Abandoned for over a year...)Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know I used the exact same comment at MfD's in the past and was chastised for it. – are you saying my argument is not pertinent to the page currently being discussed? If not, there is no reason I should not explain why the page should be deleted. That I use the same words to describe abadoned userspace drafts in near-identical situations is no reason to invalidate my arguments. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to articles userfied for over four years. No, I disagree that only userspace drafts "abandoned for over a year" should be deleted. If the editor is an SPA, and the userspace draft is promotional, I would support deletion whether the userspace draft had existed for a week, a month, three months, or a year. If the editor is an established user, the userspace draft is neutral, and the topic has a reasonable chance of becoming notable in the future (e.g. an album by a notable artist that fails WP:CRYSTAL because it hasn't been released yet; or a film with a notable director that hasn't begun filming yet), I would support retention if the draft had existed for a week, a month, three months, or a year. It all depends on the situation. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In this situation, is a single-purpose account who has failed to improve the draft for over a year. After looking at the sources, I do not see any evidence that DFTBA Records is notable. Sources such as http://wiki.dftba.com/index.php/Pieces_of_the_Mirror:_The_Taking_Leave_B-Sides are not reliable. Because WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE are applicable to this userspace draft, policy supports deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: First I am not saying that concusses has invalidated your arguments, I am saying consensus may be changing so the time limit issues need to be re-addressed. By all means start a new topic for discussion for better definition of wordings such as "indefinitely", as I mentioned above. There is another MFD going on right now that suggests 2 months is too short while this one suggests over one year is too long.(Although you indicate you do not support that period of time) Next I want to point out that WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE are content guidelines, not policy. (I point that out as was pointed out to me when I was you so to speak.) Lastly it does not matter if the subject is notable or not for a mainspace article, the core reason the article was userfied is because is was deemed not notable for mainspace anyway. Articles can be userfied when there are COI issues and there is no policy that states an SPA editor can not work on their own article in userspace (As I pointed out we have those as well) One last note - the notability of DFTBA Records can be be debated on mainspace, but not in a userfied userspace version - meaning a "delete" opinion with an argument of "non-notable" is irrelevant for a draft article still in user space. Beyond that, if one wants to look into the future for possible mainspace inclusion, there are already mainspace articles on the artists signed to the label as well as the labels "creator". Invoking other stuff exists is 100% relative in this regards because if we single out one indy label we need to re-evaluate all of them as there are many mainspace articles on them. But that is a discussion for another forum. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Indefinitely"&mdash;"without fixed or specified limit"&mdash; is the most suitable term to describe abandoned userspace drafts. I do not see the benefits of codifying in the guideline WP:FAKEARTICLE a specific time limit; each userspace draft should be evaluated on its own merits&mdash;whether there is a likelihood that the topic will become notable in the future, whether the userspace draft is promotional, whether the page is being used as a webhost by an SPA, whether the topic is notable but just needs improvement. Contrary to your assertion that both WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:FAKEARTICLE are content guidelines, WP:NOTWEBHOST is a policy. The person who told you that WP:NOTWEBHOST is a guideline should be ignored. DFTBA is not notable and was deleted under A7. That the SPA asked that it be undeleted for userification and then did not follow up on his/her assertion that the userpage would be improved indicates that Wikipedia is being used as a webhost for deleted content unsuitable for the encyclopedia. The page has remained unimproved and untouched for over a year, which is more than enough time for improvement. The policy WP:NOTWEBHOST mandates that this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I think abandoned for over a year, in this situation, qualifies for deletion. If a editor with a significant number of edits had created it, and proposed plans to get back to it some day, I'd be open to more time. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. -- SPhilbrick  T  21:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally better to just blank such pages, reasonable drafts, attempts at good sourcing, beyond WP:YAMB, but abandoned. The reference are of dubious reliability/reputability, i haven't looked into them deeply.  If the user returns to continue work, as we all would like him to do, then it is much more welcoming for him to find the page immediately unblankable.  If it is deleted, he has to requeste undeletion, which he may do, but that is a high, unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle to put in front of non-regular wikipedians.  These pages (arguably promotional) should not be left live during long periods of inactivity, per WP:FAKEARTICLE, but should be blanked, ideally by the author, when not being actively worked on.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This userpage draft has poor sourcing, not "good sourcing". There are sources from three websites; here is one example from each: http://store.dftba.com/news-upcoming-releases, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OHZFCqtnI8, and http://wiki.dftba.com/index.php/Trock_On. None of these sources is even remotely reliable. The draft contains so much original research that a major overhaul would be needed to rectify those concerns. Because using User:MaraudingChimpanzee would be unhelpful in a rewrite, and because blanking the page will still allow Wikipedia to be abused as a webhost, I oppose blanking and support deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it had good sourcing. I said what I said because I see some likelihood of good faith article writing with attempts at good sourcing.  I suggest blanking, not because the content can be improved, but because the author may learn better article writing.  Suppressing the author's contribution history is discouraging to the user, and prevents the user from learning through revieew of his past work.  To allege "abuse" is, in my opinion, to fail to Assume good faith.  I see no harm in assuming that this user will return, learn about notability concerns such as WP:CORP, learn about WP:COI, and will take a renewed interest in the project.  I see harm in deletion, because it is not welcoming; it is an outright rejection.  If we blank,  but don't delete, and the user never returns, there is no harm.  If we blank, and user returns, unblanks, and doesn't heed the message here, then I will talk to him.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When the sources are from YouTube, a store from the record label itself, and another wiki, I do not call that an attempt at good sourcing. I strongly oppose blanking because the editor has not demonstrated that the content will be improved. When, a year ago, MaraudingChimpanzee promised to improve the userspace draft so that it would be ready for mainspace, he should have made an attempt to do so. That he did not make further edits to the draft after the page was userfied demonstrates that he does not care whether or not the page makes it to the mainspace. It strongly indicates that he had the page undeleted so that it may be hosted on Wikipedia's servers. Wikipedia is not a webhost, so I strongly oppose blanking which would allow Wikipedia to be further used as a webhost for that content in that blanking still leaves this content which violates No original research and Verifiability accessible. You charge that I fail to assume good faith; I call it more as calling a spade a spade. There are no reliable sources that provide significant coverage about DFTBA Records. Thus, it is the cold hard fact that Wikipedia has rejected DFTBA Records through speedy deletion because DFTBA Records simply is not notable. The user's work has been reviewed, in that he now knows that an article based on unreliable sources will not survive on Wikipedia. If, in the future, reliable sources surface, and if, in the future, the user shows more of an interest in creating an article about DFTBA Records, the user can start afresh with a new userspace draft and not have to worry about rewriting User:MaraudingChimpanzee, which violates No original research and Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read the user's promise. The failure to follow up on the prmoise warrants this MfD.  However, given that there are no time limits, he should have been encouraged to blank during inactive periods, to avoid WP:FAKEARTICLE, and given unsuitable sourcing for a page that could be considered promotional.
 * I am quick to respect calling spades spades, but without evidence (such as spamming, offsite linking, & I note the page views are negligible) that this user's intention was to "abuse", I ask you to not readily allege this intention. I think it is too harsh to accuse a newcomer coming here to promote their interest of "abuse".  We are all here to promote our interests.
 * To nitpick, the DFTBA website is not unreliable, it fails our standards for demonstrating notability because they are not independent. The DFTBA website would be usable, with care, as a subject-associated primary source.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The websites are http://store.dftba.com http://wiki.dftba.com. I do not consider a subdomain titled "wiki" or "store" to be a reliable source.
 * "We are all here to promote our interests." – true. The interests promoted by most editors involve crafting neutral, comprehensive, comprehensible articles. The interests promoted by single-purpose accounts are in a different vein. I acknowledge that MaraudingChimpanzee may not be affiliated with the record label and may not be intentionally promoting it; however, he has inadvertently violated WP:NOTWEBHOST in publishing an article on Wikipedia and upon its deletion, requested its reinstatement as a userspace draft, thereafter abandoning it. Blanking pages that have no value to Wikipedia's mission instead of deleting them would not suffice in discouraging single-purpose accounts from abandoning their work. Cunard (talk) 01:11, 6 September 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.