Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vesna Wylde/Journey

 __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  delete. MER-C 08:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Vesna Wylde/Journey


Stale user draft, not improved for over a year. This is an album that was never released on a major label nor associated with a major artist. The user VesnaWylde, formerly RazorEye, is the artist and producer of the album, so this is self-promotion. No third party sources. No in-depth significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. There is such a vanishingly small chance that this album will become notable that Wikipedia does not need to host a user draft about it. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't understand why I have to comply with wiki rules even though this is a namespace article. Of course it's self-promotion. It's under my name space. It's not an actual Wikipedia article. It kinda defeats the purpose of allowing people to create articles under their namespace if you're suddenly just going to change the rules and not allow people like myself to create articles such as this one. This is just ridiculous, in my honest opinion. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your project. It's not meant to be your personal webhost. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to write the article up to the standards of a Wikipedia article, even if it isn't actually one. I've been told that, if I wanted to create an article on my project, I could do it under my namespace without any problems. Why is it now that I've being told otherwise? Is it solely because I wrote it and not another person? Even if the article itself is neutral and up to encyclopedic standards? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever said you could host an article in perpetuity on your namespace was wrong. The rules are clearly laid out in WP:NOT. The quality of the article is not the point; it's the lack of notability, and the fact that you were expecting Wikipedia to host it. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:FAKEARTICLE.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete PhilipTerryGraham, it's actually worse that it's in the style of an encyclopedia article.  It's allowed to have some, limited, personal information in your user space, but a full biography or article on your non-notable work is generally considered promotional, and even more so if it appears to be an encyclopedia article. Gigs (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, it is spam. Spumuq (talq) 15:27, 19 February 2015 (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.