Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Salvadi Actor/sandbox

 __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:  no consensus. Discussion did not converge toward any decision in particular. signed,Rosguill talk 03:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Salvadi Actor/sandbox

 * – (View MfD)

Spam created by blocked spammer Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Including another version on the same person by another blocked account. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Topic looks plausibly notable.  Redirect the sandbox to the draft.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect is enough. Leave it for interested editors to merge from the redirect history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep draft he's known for the 2019 Diksoochi film, and that has a bunch of coverage in the major newspapers. He was a notable child actor prior to that. I would continue to scrub out the edits from SPA editors and sockpuppets though.  Delete Merge  's sandbox version as he is sock blocked and doesn't need to maintain a separate copy of the article. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sandbox version can be merged to the draft as it has a little bit more information that can be verified with news sources. It would still need to be scrubbed. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * G5 ? This was a sock puppet creation, so why not just G5 it? If someone wants to take responsibility for it, they can just move it elsewhere. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * G5 doesn't apply retrospectively to sockpuppet creations, only to creation post-block. The accounts weren't blocked when this was created.  That's the rule, but I would support giving SPI the discretion to delete sockpuppet creations when they block all the accounts.  I do not support deletion due to sockpuppetry unless there is input from at least an SPI clerk supporting deletion, largely because MfD should not be presuming to understand SPI business.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah right. My mistake. Confused with WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Don't know why we wouldn't have an easy way to address this though, as any illegitimate sock creation is necessarily against policy (assuming confidence it really was socking). I guess plain ol' Delete then by default, unless someone else wants to take responsibility for it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCKSTRIKE says "don't feed the socks". That means, do not create an unnecessary community discussion page for every page that they created.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2020 (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.