Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zonefocus22/sandbox/Paul Addis

 __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:  procedural keep due to the move to mainspace. I'm usually not sympathetic to a move of namespace requiring a discussion to do a hard reset, but here, it's needed. Many of the arguments made in this MFD relate to a previous AfD, notability, and to what extent that affects old draft copies. These are all now irrelevant, and the new now-relevant arguments can best be made in a new discussion at AfD. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Zonefocus22/sandbox/Paul Addis


Previously deleted at AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Addis and by speedy. Title now salted. We should delete this long abandoned userfied page since it's not been improved since the AfD and the subject is dead an therefore is never going to increase in N Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The above assertion that this article 'has not been improved since the AfD' in 2007 is completely incorrect. The referenced previous AfD was for a different, one-sentence article under the same title that did not include the vast majority of this article's information or sources.Zonefocus22 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of people increase in WP:N after their deaths. Also, WP:GNG do not apply in userspace. Newimpartial (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Content copied from mainspace[edit source]

Shortcut: WP:UP#COPIES

Old copies of mainspace articles should be deleted. Mainspace material may be copied to userspace for short-term, active drafting or experimental purposes (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these). Note the requirements of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Satisfactory edits should be promptly incorporated into the mainspace article and the userspace copy deleted (use db-u1), as content forking represents an attribution hazard.

This could also be speedy deleted G4. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But WP:UP does not apply when there is no mainspace article. Nice try. And neither does WP:CSD G4. Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * for future readers, Newimpartial is incorrect. There was a mainspace article. It got deleted vis AfD. This is an inappropriate copy. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a copy, and it wouldn't be a G4 even if it weren't in userspace and exempt. The article that was deleted at AFD (ten years ago!) was all of one sentence long, citing only  and . —Cryptic 18:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Abandoned userspace draft by an inactive user. BLP1E applies in spades; the event in question is already sufficiently covered at Burning Man. It is vanishingly unlikely that enough RS to justify a standalone article will develop for this person, going on 5 years after the man's death. There is no encyclopedic purpose to letting this sit eternally in userspace. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject's notability is clearly established by the linked sources, not least of which is a standalone profile of the subject in Wired magazine. The 2007 deletion discussion for the article with the same title concerned a one-sentence article, and was based on incomplete information that did not include or consider many of the relevant sources.Zonefocus22 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the arguments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Burning Man per WP:BIO1E. The appropriate place to cover this limited-notability person is in that article.  Drafting a standalone article leads straight to a WP:DUE failure.  Send the author to that article, where he can work collaboratively with others, in mainspace.  More could be added to that article on this person, possibly a little, but it is best for editors there to decide.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject of this article is covered in multiple mainstream press sources both related and unrelated to the Burning Man incident, as well as a standalone interview and profile of the subject in Wired magazine. The included citations for this additional material wholly negate the argument for a standalone article leading to WP:DUE failure.Zonefocus22 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The claim that this is an "abandoned userspace draft by an inactive user" is petty, irrelevant, and incorrect. This is NOT a copy of a deleted mainspace article as several editors have claimed, and uses no copied material whatsoever. The article on this subject that was deleted in 2007 was one or two sentences, and not remotely comparable to this entry. The issue of notability raised in 2007 is more than adequately addressed by the multiple cited mainstream press articles on the subject. If multiple news articles (unrelated to Burning Man), and a standalone profile article on the subject in Wired magazine aren't enough to establish notability, what is? Zonefocus22 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment the title has been deleted before. Us lowly users can't compare the contents previously deleted with this version. The guy seems to be a petty criminal who burned down something too soon. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ironic that Legacypac would use that word, "petty," in the process of (still) arguing to delete an article on wholly disingenuous grounds - from userspace, no less. Ample sources have been provided demonstrating the notability of this subject (have any "petty criminals" you know ever been licensed as an attorney or profiled as a "hero" in Wired?) and now he's deflecting his 100% false prior claim that this is a copy of deleted material by asserting that his 'expert' opinion regarding the subject's notability trumps both those sources AND WP:N policy? Legacypac has misused the speedy delete request and misrepresented the article's content as copied from a deleted mainspace article, and is now persisting in his spurious argument regarding notability apparently without even reading the relevant sources cited. Zonefocus22 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Page looks pretty complete. Would it survive in Mainspace? We are all entitled to our own evaluation of the notability of the topic. I know that becomjng a licensed lawyer does not establish notability at all. I know dozens of lawyers and none of them have a wikipedia page. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the law license, which speaks to the subject not being just "a petty criminal," but not to the WP:N issue. That notability issue is amply addressed by the subject's profile in Wired and by the other articles, along with a number of other sources I didn't bother to cite because I thought they'd be redundant. I didn't publish this article when I wrote it because I thought it needed further editing, but I'll gladly leave that to others' contributions in Mainspace. Zonefocus22 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This page is now at Paul Addis, which takes it out of MFD's scope. —Cryptic 05:28, 11 June 2017 (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.