Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band)




 * 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  MOOT - all pages have been blanked by the author. Speedy U1 no longer includes an express provision for deleting user pages blanked by the author, Speedy G7 specifically does not apply to user space, and WP:USER does not provide a policy basis but merely says that some users may interpret blanking as a request for deletion. This admin chooses not to so interpret it. Blanking is sufficient to address all of the concerns below, except that of indexing, which is easily solved by adding noindex to the pages; had the pages remained, a userpage template would have clarified that they were not encyclopedia articles sufficiently in the short term - in case the author was only practicing. Longer term, blanking rather than deleting would have been sufficient community action. Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band)


We are not a webhost for garage bands. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep User:Septemberboy009/Blades (band), U7 speedy delete on User:Septemberboy009/Autopsy User:Septemberboy009/Nilkanth Baxi User:Septemberboy009/Purnima Baxi (as they are blank) others pretty harmless in userspace as they could become articles if the topics proved themselves notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the article? These kids are fourteen, and not getting notable anytime soon. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did notice that they are nowhere near notable, but because they are not articles, that criteria does not have to apply. You could cinsider them nicly formatted sandboxes. If they were called Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Self-promotional "pseudoarticles" in user space are damaging to the project in the same way that mainspace spam is. Part of the reason we have a policy on promotion and spam is so that people can't use the reputation of Wikipedia to further their own self-interests. If we allow people to have what looks like an encyclopedia article in userspace, then they could easily be sending less savvy users to that page as if it were a real article, and they may well not notice or even be aware of what "User namespace" is, or even what a namespace is in the first place. As well, userspace is indexed, so often these fake encyclopedia articles are the first hit in Google on their name. (I can't demonstrate this because the MfD template automatically noindexes them). Gigs (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All Not a snowball's chance in hell of establishing notability in the near term. If they hit it big, then we can revisit. Gigs (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's try not to bite . This is a new contributor making mainspace contributions.  These user subpages are pretty harmless in the short term.  Instead of deleting them in a knee-jerk reaction, better to refer the user to Alternative outlets, Yet another MySpace band, and to have him move the content elsewhere, and tag the pages db-user himself.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * However much I like the spirit of that in most cases, this isn't a new user account and an XfD is the polite way of doing things instead of A7 fever. A month ago there was a final warning on a file upload so the user's talk page exists and is there to see, and in order to publish so many articles made with detailed inter-connectivity it's obvious they know the system and the general rules. The MfD period of a week is certainly enough time to allow improvements. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think of two months as newish. He's made a lot of edits for the number of warnings he's been given.  To me, MfD is more "confrontational and authoritarian" than "polite", as a first attempt at communication.  I think he should have been asked o his talk page before the filing of an MfD.  I think we should give him a chance to move the stuff off-site in his own time.  Yes, a week is enough, if he is editing this week.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All: "Harmless" as as mentioned above is not a reason to give articles a pass and keep. Everything that comes to attention needs to be evaluated the exact same way. Take a look at what links to the article... it's this discussion and the articles set for deletion and a few randoms. Not so cool. Past the overall duck test of "I see...", I can't help but note that not a single one of the 12 given criteria for defining possible notability within WP:MUSIC has been met. Looking beyond that, I don't see any other things that would stand out and try to make a case for itself. ...And if that's not good enough, their upcoming album is listed for 2010! Aha, WP:CRYSTAL! If it actually gets coughed up on a chart somewhere or there are a variety of reviews and entertainment media interviews after the CD is released? Let us rush to the archives! Until then, no. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all Absolutely no reason to keep. Userspace is not meant to hold content that wouldn't stand a chance in article space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not a valid criterion for deletion in userspace as it is in mainspace. Collect (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No chance in hell of establishing notability can be. Userspace is not for "indefinite archives of permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". In cases where there is clearly no notability, and there is unlikely to be any significant level of notability in the near future, then notability can indeed come into play since it means the user page is intended to be an indefinite archive of something that will never get into mainspace. This only comes into play when the page is written as an encyclopedia article, when it is clearly meant to be part of the encyclopedia. Gigs (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOT. Glass  Cobra  01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - classic example of squirreling a bunch of non-notable topics away in userspace, in a format that may appear to the outside reader as legit Wikipedia articles, even though subjects clearly fail WP:BAND, possibly hoping to get picked up by Google, etc. "It's in userspace" is no excuse to violate other precepts, especially WP:NOT. Only "keep" argument I'm seeing of interest is a variant of the futile WP:UPANDCOMING: that they might be notable someday. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:25, 3 November 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.