Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Olly836/Ian Olliver

 __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 Soft Delete, should anyone want to adopt this and improve it request it to be undeleted and moved.. — xaosflux  Talk 12:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Olly836/Ian Olliver


Autobiography of a musician found in stale draft list. No sources and no strong claim to notability. Maybe qualifies for NOTAWEBHOST. Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply since the page is clearly written to be an encyclopedic article and can serve no other purpose. Tone is not promotional. WP:V and WP:N are irrelevant in userspace. No reason to delete exists. Per WP:MfD: "we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines." To remove this page from the stale draft category, recategorize into maintenance category and blank+template are better options that I would be fine with. A2soup (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's a WP:STALEDRAFT, and contains unsourced claims about BLP subjects, not only the actual subject. STALEDRAFT #2 says that we should consider blank+template. I don't think that's adequate in this circumstance. STALEDRAFT #4 only applies if there's "some potential". I see no potential for this. From all appearances the only claim to notability this subject has is that he was one of the three members of the PJ Harvey Trio (which has no article, though PJ Harvey does); everywhere else he doesn't seem to have been a prominent member, or the band wasn't prominent. So I have a pretty strong suspicion this wouldn't survive AfD anyway... meaning no potential. In fact, STALEDRAFT #3 suggests we might consider U5: While it's not promotional, it is "otherwise unsuitable" (unsourced BLP), and Olly836 was never a serious Wikipedia editor. Even so, I think a straight delete is better here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd reading of WP:STALEDRAFT, seeing as the only point in that guideline that directly references non-U5 deletion is #6, which reads: "if of no potential and problematic even if blanked, seek deletion." I can accept the no potential, but what here is problematic even if blanked? Note that BLP issues are specifically given as an example of when blanking would be appropriate. A2soup (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Consider" does not mean "you must". I considered it and I disagree that blanking is sufficient to address the BLP issues here. None of the other alternatives appear reasonable for this situation. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If any BLP issues can be addressed by blanking, these can. They are about as minor as BLP issues can get - the draft is dully factual and makes neither positive nor negative nor extraordinary (or even very interesting) claims. Are there any cases in which blanking is sufficient to address BLP issues? If yes, what do those cases look like? If no, then you just disagree with the guideline. A2soup (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but blank with Inactive userpage blanked. Some weak claim to notability, some decent content, this is not the sort of worthless of draft that needs deletion, could be useful, does no harm in userspace, and less harm if blanked.  Anyone else interested will find it via its title in a Wikipedia userspace search.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an evident COI here. It's promotional in tone. It would not survive AfD, and yes I know that A2soup does not consider GNG to apply on a case like this, but if this is kept, it should be tested in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...but no one wants it in mainspace in its current state. It's obviously not ready for mainspace - that's why its still a draft. Why should it be tested in mainspace? Also, can you give a quote from the draft that you find to have a promotional tone? I don't see any. A2soup (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * are you offering to adopt it and improve for mainspace? It is not going too be the creating editor, or a mythical future editor, so if not you, then why keep it? The user made three edits total, on one day in Sept 2011, and the other two were to add unsourced info to another related article. . How long should we keep this... another year, two, 50 years? The existence of the page is promotional as it covers a person that fails GNG and the guy wrote it about himself. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, it's not the content of the page but its existence that is promotional. I don't agree with that application of promotion - see for example WP:COIATTRIBUTE, which seems to suggest draftspace as a place for COI edits to be drafted for copying to mainspace by other editors. In any case, the promotion here, if it exists, is so mild that blanking is more than sufficient. Re "why keep it?" - because deletion is a worse option that the alternatives - see my long post here, to which has also been added the additional alternative of recategorizing to an informative maintenance category. A2soup (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as none of this suggests the applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  07:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What notability is "applicable" in userspace? A2soup (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project" See WP:UP and WP:UP since it does not pass GNG is is unrelated to the goals of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability guidelines do not apply to user space. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again - if kept it will be tested in mainspace. We don't keep stuff with no potential, so vote accordingly. Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your disruption has no point. Quit it please. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just a reminder that when this practice was discussed, it was condemned by literally everyone who participated in the discussion except yourself. A2soup (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussed by a small group of editors with an agenda based on a faulty reading of an RfC. In other places it has been widely supported that a Keep at MfD is an endorsement of the content going to mainspace sooner or later. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to one of these "other places"? A2soup (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Start with the ANi thread you participated in. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~
 * I mean, I wasn't going to mention it, because you would probably call it a personal attack, but in that thread I see an admin sanctioning you for the move. Liz condemns the move. The Voidwalker seems to have a problem with your supposed thought process, but doesn't reach a conclusion. Robert McClenon says it's not a conduct issue, but recommends reversing the move, which is certainly not an endorsement. SoftLavender says that moving pages useful to the encyclopedia to mainspace is fine. Rob says the move is WP:POINT. Ricky says most of your moves seem fine, but doesn't endorse the practice of moving to mainspace drafts not suitable for mainspace. Mendaliv is the only one to support the move, citing IAR. SmokeyJoe and I of course condemn the move. Then the discussion veers into policy and away from your moves in particular. So I count 6 editors (Martin, Liz, Robert McClenon, Rob, SmokeyJoe, and I) disagreeing with the move (and one sanctioning you for it), 3 (The Voidwalker, Ricky, and SoftLavender) not giving a definite view, and 2 (Mendaliv and yourself) supporting it. You're going to have to forgive me if I don't see moving pages into mainspace that you know are not suitable for mainspace being "widely supported" in that discussion. Any other discussions you want to point out? A2soup (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment this page was evidently written by the subject in 2011. It was one of three edits, all to insert himself into Wikipedia, within a few minutes. The editor was not here to build an encyclopedia. There are no references. No verification. Nothing that suggests this article or any article on this person would survive in mainspace. The keep comments here are just noise and nonsense for the sake of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that is your opinion, but there is not clear consensus that it matches the opinion of the community. Dismissing others' opinions as disruption and promising to nominate thousands of similar articles regardless of the actual content of our guidelines is a problem. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Fails WP:MUSICIAN, and as a "autobiography" it is also WP:UP. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 29 March 2016 (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.