Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue




 * 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  No consensus - There was not clear enough consensus to warrant deletion at this time. --Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue
Article was speedy deleted under CSD A7 (no assertion of significance or importance). It was restored and userfied on 15 August so that the user could improve the article by addressing this issue. The user has made no attempt to do so, as can be seen in this diff, which shows the changes from the time of userfication to the user's last edit on 16 August. There is still no assertion of significance or importance, and no evidence of notability, so restoring and userfying the page has not served the purpose intended. The user has now had 40 days in which to deal with the issue, and has made no attempt at all to do so. I can find no evidence that this band is notable. --JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete — Although there was some work done on the article on 16 August, there still are no references listed. I can't find any refs via Google except facebook, as well as lyric and MP3 download sites, none of which are RS. No prejudice to recreation if RS are found. — Becksguy (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep per several later compelling arguments that one month in user space is not enough time to allow for expansion and sourcing. Existence as a user subpage does not hurt WP. — Becksguy (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete . No editing after userification. If editor requests again (appears to be inactive), no prejudice against permitting an actual attempt to improve. Bongo  matic  14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User no longer appears inactive. While I agree that no immediate improvement is required for keeping, if the editor is not actually active on the project, I cannot see any basis to keep stuff around. Bongo  matic  04:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep . Google searches indicate that the subject is conceivably sufficiently notable.  One month is not a long time, certainly not in userspace.  It looks like this user is being harassed for quite reasonable editing, such as adding redlinks for desirable articles.  This recent trend of abhorrence of redlinks, and tighter restrictions is detrimental to the future of the project.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Google searches indicate notability then you should be able to give us examples of substantial independent coverage: to simply say that Google searches indicate such coverage, but not show us the coverage, is not much help. I have checked every one of the first 30 hits that I got from a Google search. I found MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, countless listing sites, frequently giving lyrics, sites where one can download their music, and two brief one-paragraph reviews, at least one of which was on a site which displays reviews of what users nominate. I did not find the slightest trace of anything which could remotely be called substantial independent coverage. I repeat my invitation to you to show us the evidence of notability, since you say you have found it.
 * No, I did not say google searches indicate notability, only conceivably. There are lots of hits to the google search.  This means that there is interest in the world of the subject (not quite our standard).  However, evidence to support our inclusion cirteria, poorly defined admittedly, definately are not restricted to what can be found on the web.  Real world objective evidence is highly desirable.  You apparently looked at more depth into the google results, and found what I quickly surmised, that the google results don't on their own support a standalone mainspace article.  But we aren't talking about mainspace.  If it is conceivable that something can be developed or discovered, then such things are welcome in userspace.  If activity is very slow, then I think it appropriate to keep the material in the history of a blanked page, but not deleted unless the editor gives up entirely.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show us where the editor is being harassed for adding redlinks? The only thing I have found that this can refer to is one request to stop adding redlinks on 15 August. I don't, as it happens, agree with the editor who made this request, but I don't see that it is accurate to describe this as "the editor is being harassed". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Looks to be just one incident.  I refer to BVB, history from 01:30 to 09:53, 15 August 2009.  I disagree with Bongomatic’s reversions, it is quite a reasonable thing to create redlinks for an article you think should exist.  Incoming links are a consideration to notability, and gounds to contest a CSD#A7 (or should be).  Given that Mcrfobrockr’s edits were in good faith, I consider Bongomatic’s marking of his reversions as minor to be an attempt (successful) to intimidate Mcrfobrockr.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with SmokeyJoe that one month is not an especially long time. All sorts of things could distract an editor for a month or even a few. If this is still unchanged several months from now, I'll join in calling for deletion, but for now this editor deserves the benefit of the doubt. --RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Give the user more time to bring the article up to code, eh? ArcAngel (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep One month is not enough time, since there are at least ghits. Six months, now, might be reasonable.    DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ghits yes, but do any of them suggest notability? The mere presence of Google hits is not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One month is enough time to bring up to standards, it hasn't been edited since it was moved, so no attempt is being made to bring it up to scratch. Even though the band appears to exist doesn't meet our notability standards, yet. And anyone creating a profiles/account on websites can get WP:GHITS, so that's not an argument.--Otterathome (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per my commentary on such bands. Recreate in articlespace if the band ever moves out of the garage. → ROUX   ₪  23:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree that new articles should be required to begin in mainspace, but otherwise support WP:YAMB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No apparant potential for this article to be accepted. No prejudice towards future recreation if it becomes notable.  Triplestop  x3  01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on reconsideration. This should not be deleted because it was previously a CSD#A7, or because it is not notable enough for mainspace, or because it hasn't been edited for a period of time, but delete due to being there only for promotional reasons.  I have removed the most offensive promotional aspect .  In general, if there are no sign of reliable independent sources, and if it looks promotional, then it is definately not OK.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SmokeyJoe that the promotional nature of the page is a good reason for deleting it. The basis of my nomination was that the reasons for deletion were already known, and that an exception had been made to allow the user to deal with them, but the user has not done so, and so there is no longer a justification for making an exception. The question of making an exception would not have arisen had there not been grounds for deletion in the first case, and "promotion" is one of them, though I think "no assertion of significance or importance" is a pretty good one too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 1 October 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.