Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zoeklinger/adrianphilpott

 __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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Zoeklinger/adrianphilpott
Abandoned BLP draft from October 2009. User has not edited since creating it. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Abandoned WP:FAKEARTICLE. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blank only. Reasonable draft for a desired article (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Adrian_Philpott).  I can't immediately find independent sources online.  Blanking is acceptable, and is preferable because the next person who wants to create the article can find the history by searching userspace (eg ).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FAKEARTICLE states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. I oppose blanking of this unsourced BLP draft. I note that I could not find coverage of this individual in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maintaining a history behind a blanked page is not webhosting. It is not love.  The content is not even searchable by projects internal search tool.  We are not talking about old revisions, but the latest versions.  This is not a private copy of anything.  This is the latest draft version of a desired article on a potentially, but not yet notable person.  It belongs in userspace, blanked.  There are not BLP issues of concern in the draft or its history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blanking an unsourced draft is in effect keeping a page that violates WP:NOR and WP:V in the hope that the person will become notable. The user has been given one year to improve the draft and has failed to do so. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR is not required to be met in userspace, and it requires the discovery of suitable secondary sources, which is the aim of the game here. It doesn't fail WP:V.  The content is verifiable from dependent sources, and is very unlikely to be challenged.  Read WP:V more carefully.  The supporting sources are appropriately not included because they do not help to meet WP:N.  WP:CRYSTAL speaks to covering things that have not happened, especially where Wikipedians begin to speculate on what will probably happen.  This is about content, not sources.  The content of the draft is current, not speculative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A userspace draft composed solely of OR is unhelpful in creating a Wikipedia article; it can even be detrimental if such information were to be used to construct an encyclopedic article. An unsourced BLP fails V; there is no way it can pass it. After a year, no changes have been made to the draft, whether to establish notability or to verify the assertions. It is pure speculation to believe that the subject will become notable in the future. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, the draft is not "solely composed of OR", and even if it is, it doesn't mean that it is useless for reference for future efforts. I think you misread WP:V.  Verifiable, not verified.  Which bit do you argue is contentious?  Speculation that a subject will become wikipedia-notable is perfectly reasonable in userspace, if blanked during long inactive periods.  In this case, the information is verifiable, and the few passing mentions received are a positive indicator of potential future coverage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no source for "In 1994 Adrian collaborated with Vaughan Oliver and designed the limited edition book 'This Rimy River' to accompany the Los Angeles exhibition, This Rimy River." I did a Google search for this information and have found only Wikipedia mirrors. Either this information is made up, or the creator is doing original research. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On reading the Amazon review of the given reference, I predict that the information is to be found in the book. The book is not in my local library, but I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to find.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is pure speculation that the role the subject played warranted a mention in the book. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (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.