Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:YourBrandRocks/Ryan Arnold

 __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  Speedy Deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:G11. Brustopher (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:YourBrandRocks/Ryan Arnold


Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete.  Replace with inactive userpage blanked.  Content is unrelated to Ryan Arnold.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)  To be clear, the page should be blanked.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not the editor's userpage. It's a WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:WEBHOST issue. Plus, if this is purely promotional (and the name implies something), we have to keep watch to make sure it isn't restored. That's not a needed nuisance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a userspace draft. It even has an attempt at sourcing.  It is no more a FAKEARTICLE or a WEBHOST problem than a million other userspace drafts.  If you think there is any FAKEARTICLE issue (I disagree), then you can fix it with userpage, or, given the long period of inactivity, inactive userpage blanked.  Page view statistics indicate that you are wrong about an active WEBHOST abuse.  And in either case, you can fix the problem without deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What fix do you have in mind? Blanking the article now and if the user comes back to restore it to spam it again (a one-line 'social media strategist' biography article is good likely to be just that), blank it again and again? Have you dealt with those kind of people? There's been characters that require as many as five, six different articles and userpages deleted over years. Why should we have to spend our time with their gamesmanship? Would you rather I just move it to articlespace and list it for AFD or CSD and have it deleted then? It wouldn't survive there so why should it stay around in the editor's userspace? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Blanking with a message is sufficient fix. If the user returns, he can read the message and engage in conversation.  If the material is kneejerk deleted, you are instead teaching the user that you don't care and that he may as well learn to hide better.  Blatant promoters respond better to conversation and quiet slow reversion.  There is no need to create these MfD discussions.  I would rather you liberally tag it db-g11 than draw community attention to it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT and fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * STALEDRAFT is not a deletion reason per se. WP:GNG doesn't apply to userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:50, 15 June 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.