Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TexiDNA/Free mary jane

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 05:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TexiDNA/Free mary jane


Based on an essay by the author. See note at the bottom about uploading it. Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blank. Plausibly a notable topic.  No reason to delete until someone can show that it is not even plausibly notable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment when did we start placing the burden of proving a negative on nominators? 100% of things fail notability unless proved to be notable. Wikipedia is not a place to write about stuff you dreamed up one afternoon, yet this is exactly what this page is. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Burden on nominator is not proof, but at least a moderately persuasive rational. "Based on an essay" is not a deletion reason.  It may not be a good sign, but in the end it is not the reason to delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP#NOT you can't put your essays or in this case an essay about your essay in Wikipedia. this is an advocacy piece not an encyclopia topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Essays unrelated to the project are not allowed, no. In this case, the first case is plausibly about an advocacy movement, and it is plausibly notable.  However, the second paragraph moves towards repeating the advocacy lines, although it is not unashamed advocacy.  On balance, I call it "about a movement" not "advocacy by the movement".
 * "100% of things fail notability unless proved to be notable"? I read that as absurd.  Are you talking about WP:N.  You don't seem conversant on it.
 * "stuff you dreamed up one afternoon, yet this is exactly what this page is". Well that is not true.  The movement verifiably exists.  It is plausibly notable.  Lots of blogs though, and not to be confused with Mary Jane Veloso.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's a draft from March 2012 with no sources and no indication of notability. If the editor returns, they can request restoration. If someone here thinks that there's a chance that it's notable, then we can move it to their userspace or draftify but I don't see the point of keeping it where it is or blanking it right there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Free Mary Jane Movement is a national public debate topic ... for a number of years" is an indication of notability. Sources exist.  Your deletion reasons here are weak even for AfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Legalization of Pot is a valid topic. This user is puffing up the importance of his essay. Legacypac (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Legality of cannabis, Prohibition of drugs, Drug liberalization, all valid topics and appropriate content. The comparison serves to support the topic as suitable for Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Legacypac and WP:NOTWEBHOST. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic remains plausibly notable, and the draft contains a useful start and useful references. Deletion would be a net negative.  there are no time limits, this page does no harm waiting for an interested editor to pick it up.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 27 May 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.