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: clear consensus here is that Circball related content is not welcome on Wikipedia at this time, whether this draft, or not. Silver Saren has requested I close this now. Prodego ^talk 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball[edit]

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not notable. Article was already deleted at AfD Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional: Deletion was endorced at DRV Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - as nom Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 07:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, Speedy close It's a draft to be worked on. We already know that the subject is currently non-notable, but that may not be true in the future. That is why it is a part of Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts. This is just ridiculous. Users are allowed to have userified versions of articles to work on if they don't yet meet the requirements to be added to mainspace. That's why the Incubator used to exist after all. No policy based reasoning has been presented by the nominator as to why this draft article should be deleted, so I suggest that it be Speedy Closed. Silverseren^C 08:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agreed with Silverseren. This is, at long last, the correct place for this article to be worked on. Deleting it here is OTT. Should reliable sources never materialise so be it, but AfD is not a death sentence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - If this is kept here then I shall drop the stick and let it go. It's just that the content was ALREADY deleted at discussion and said deletion was endorsed. But if I am in the minority here I will happily yield to an article that has managed to survive AfD and DRV with both resoundly delete it which was originally written by a user who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 11:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• But that has nothing to do with a userified draft of an article. There are plenty of articles that were deleted at AfD and re-made later when they had better notability and have been kept since then. That's true for a fair amount of the draft articles that passed through the Article Incubator. Silverseren^C 11:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Jesus fucking christ, there's thousands of topics to work on, go find something more worthwhile to do; the well is about as poisoned as it can possibly be with this topic. This was deleted, upheld at DRV, userfied and failed in a review by two admins, one of em a fellow ARS'er. It also went to the reliable sources and request for feedback boards, all failures. Its an amateur rec league activity. If it captures the (fictional) national attention like the fictional BASEketball did, great, but there is currently nothing that fanciful in existence for this thing. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Was deleted previously not notable nor likely ever to be. On top of that it was originally re proposed by user now banned for socking see ANI. I see no merit it to keeping this even as a draft. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This looks very much like a G4 to me: it was already deleted out of both articlespace and userspace, and was proposed to the wikiproject in a direct and obvious attempt to circumvent deletion policy. Precisely what "explicit improvement" do those wishing it to be kept expect to make to the article? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, and hopefully this discussion should be the last. Let's scrutinize the "sources" this article has:
  1. The sources from Facebook all fail WP:RS.
  2. "Major news coverage of Circball" from Saksi (a late night news program of GMA) is as major as any feature on NBC Nightly News on a crying baby being put to sleep by a pet cat. They show it once then forget about it.
  3. Tropang Potchi is a kiddie TV program airing on GMA. Remember the cute little features on Teletubbies on their TV-tummies of kids playing random stuff? That's it.
  4. Abante Tonite is a tabloid newspaper. It does not pass WP:RS; in fact the way it is sourced in the "draft", it's like a reference to a reference, and it's not in-depth coverage.
  5. Since when is a a certificate from an office in a barangay (I dunno the American equivalent but the nearest comparison are the Communes of France) pass as RS? Yes it proves the game exists. So what?
  6. Letter of intent from Sports 37. While I will not prevent anyone from using UNTV 37's news services from being used in Wikipedia, I'd highly recommend other news sources. UNTV 37 is a channel no one really watches, unless you're watching Ang Dating Daan (ADD). While it can be said those who watch ADD may be plentiful, it's a real safe bet no one watches UNTV's Sports 37 program. Perhaps even ADD adherents. And "letters of intent" can't be used as references.
  • With the current state of sourcing in this article, this has no chance in hell in being a full-fledged article, unless Tropang Potchi somehow includes this game as a regular segment in their show, that means it can be placed in the Tropang Potchi article but still won't be enough on an article on circball. With my discussion with GalingPinas, the sources he used attested that the game exists. That won't be enough. What's the threshold? I'd say we'd base it on what happened on the Jejemon phenomenon last year: several programs from several news outlets had features, newspaper articles were plentiful, and it was a "hit" on social media. If the awareness on circball becomes as big as Jejemon's, then it can be created. As for now, no. If it does, I have no problem on it being on a draft on userspace, even a real article. –HTD 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment None of your statements actually have anything to do with the policy of deleting a userspace draft. All of your statements are acting as if this is an AfD, when it's not. I am allowed to have a draft article of whatever kind of article that I want (pending that it is not offensive, derogatory, or copyrighted material), even one which is currently not notable. God knows that there are a ton of draft articles in people's sandboxes that are like that. Silverseren^C 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Point of inquiry: Are users allowed to keep a copy of an already deleted article as a draft in their user pages? I can understand drafts that have never been into the mainspace as they're not supposed to be seen yet, but the point of deleting articles is that they're gone until something happens (the subject becomes notable, for example), not deleting them only to be resurrected as a draft on userspace. –HTD 18:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, to your first question, as long as they are actually going to work on them and not just keep a copy of them to try to get in later. Plenty of articles that have been deleted have been worked on in an article draft and resubmitted to mainspace later and have been kept. Silverseren^C 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well of course this is all rosy and nice. But... (see my comment below) –HTD 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You left out the relevant categories: material moved to userspace to circumvent deletion policy, which this indisputably was at least initially; and material not moved to userspace for explicit improvement. Howard the Duck's assessment of the existing sources is directly relevant in the latter context. So I ask again: how do you propose to improve this article so that it would be appropriate for mainspace? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Improve what's in it, for one. Remove all of the unreferenced material (which i've already started). Make the wording proper english, format the references properly. And then i'm going to go see if I can find anything else Filipino news. Do remember that this sport variation only started late last year. It's very, very new. And to already be covered in even the small extent that it has implies that it is actually something popular in the Philippines, meaning that more sources will come. Silverseren^C 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I learned this when I rescued the Jejemon article, that was CSDed. AFDed and DYKed in a span of a month: Anything that qualifies as WP:RS in the Philippines, is believe it or not, is mostly in English and is on the internet. This includes news websites and newspapers. In fact, it'll be easier to find something if it's "very, very new" as it won't be subjected to link rot -- the older links are either impossible to recover or you'd use the Wayback Machine. The fact that GalingPinas resorted to Facebook, one-time features on Saksi and Tropang Potchi (with matching sub-reference to a Tagalog tabloid, although not all Tagalog tabloids are that bad), Sports 37, and a barangay notice means GalingPinas has virtually exhausted everything that is within the bounds of WP:RS. –HTD 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Currently, perhaps. But, as I stated above, Circball has only been around for a year, yet it seems to have garnered some attention rather quickly, even if it's only in places that are on the edge of RS. I am fairly certain that further sources will become available very, very soon. And I want to work on the article before and when those sources come out. At the very least, make the article presentable for what's currently available for it. Why can't I do that? Silverseren^C 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The Jejemon article I rescued was only around for a month when it made it to the DYK section. If the subject is a valid Wikipedia article we'd be getting references by the boatloads now. No one's keeping you from working on it; you can still retrieve the deleted version by asking an admin once you get proper references. Since you don't have anything to work with, it's better to be deleted, but it's not lost as it can still be retrieved; in my case I wrote a completely different version (I got lazy on pestering the admin to restore the old version) so that it won't be CSDed. –HTD 18:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • So, you're essentially saying that we should have deleted the entire Article Incubator back when it was active? Silverseren^C 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • I'm sorry. I dunno what was/is that. The anon PinasIto must've been a better Wikipedian than I am (LOL). If that was/is used for articles that had never been deleted then that should be OK. I think I keep some crappy drafts on my sandbox. Those had never been deleted. This one has been deleted, DRVed, placed in the drafts Wikiproject, then the draft was deleted, then restored; the article is currently (and probably will never be) ready. –HTD 19:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • The Article Incubator is/was for articles that had been deleted because they currently don't meet notability, but a user has decided to work on them. The article was originally deleted in good faith for there not currently being enough sources. The DRV was malformed upon creation by the banned user and can never to have been expected to work. But the rest of what happened was improper. A userspace/Wikiproject draft made to be worked on doesn't fall under the CSD criteria, only ones that are trying to keep the article as it was to try and have it be submitted again fall under that criteria. So the constant CSDing wasn't following proper process at all. Silverseren^C 19:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete was a valid speedy G5. Some may feel the originator may have been treated better, I encountered them at DRV trying to apply some bizarre interpretation of WP:NNC, despite trying to explain patiently several times that their interpretation was incorrect, they merely persisted in restating it. At some point after that I became aware of the background to all this, where I can see several people having tried to deal with the person calmly and appropriately. This was of course all for naught and they ended up rapidly exhausting many peoples patience. They then sock to recreate this article (complete with denial of socking despites it's absolute transparency) and I see also further [[1]] to try and continue to try their wikilaywering of WP:NNC. At this point it seems readily apparent that having this here or elsewhere in another form is merely serving to further encourage the person behind this and likely to just lead to more disruption, of course if someone wants to take on active editing of this in the future when things calm down, then the picture may be sufficiently different. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• DELAY for a week or two. An experienced editor has said they're going to try to work on it. If this gets deleted here, they'll have it recreated in userspace, and work on it there. So deleting the draft, which is not in article space, is really a case of process triumphing over progress. Give Silverseren a chance to rescue this trainwreck. I don't think they can, but good grief, it's not going to hurt anything. Ravensfire (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - with respect to Silverseren and Ravensfire, all the work in the world won't establish notability for a non-notable topic. Circball was deleted two weeks ago due to a failure of notability; it's extremely unlikely that, two weeks later, the subject is suddenly notable. It might be notable in the future, but keeping a userspace draft around until then because it might become notable isn't what userspace drafts are for, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again, what were things like the Article Incubator for if not that then? Silverseren^C 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • (edit conflict)The Article Incubator and userspace are good things - when there's a possibility of an incubated article's subject becoming notable within a reasonable period of time. "Might" become notable is WP:CRYSTALish and is likely to result in the article sitting in userspace indefinitly due to lack of notablility. Also, as noted, the method in which this article was moved to the "abandoned drafts" area in the first place was a blatant attempt at gaming the system by an editor who is (a) now blocked for a year and (b) has sockpuppeted to evade that block, with the sockpuppet being the one who put this article at the abandoned-drafts page. If you believe this can become a notable topic, then by all means work on it - by starting from scratch, not by restoring the properly-deleted article that was deleted, confirmed deleted, end-run restored by an editor who was, frankly, trolling (WP:DENY comes to mind), and then properly speedy-deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment So, has anyone actually proposed any real policy-based reason for why this should be deleted? I see G4 and G5 used above, but G4 doesn't apply to userified copies that are being improved, it specifically states that. And G5 doesn't apply because i've been editing the draft, so it's not just by a banned user anymore. You guys got anything else? Because lack of notability isn't an MfD deletion criteria. Silverseren^C 20:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It was a valid G5 deletion, the fact that you believe your view is more important than established policies, the consensus formed concerning this etc. such that you'd ignore it all and start editing it to subvert the genuine deletion, isn't something I'd be boasting about. MfD criteria don't actually exist as such, it's for the community to decide if it's useful for the furtherance of the project, so if they believe notability is a factor in that, then yes it is. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The original user has socked twice to try and get this through. We shouldn't allow people to get around policy. The page is non notable and is never likely to be notable. There is no point in us pandering to that. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This really isn't any different from someone trying to add promotional material for a company. But, if a company is likely to become worthwhile, we're not going to just block it from existing because a user was promoting it or even if they socked to do it. We would just make sure that it's done neutrally. And I, clearly, disagree with you on the future prospects of notability for the subject. Silverseren^C 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Really. Show us one new source you've dug up that the original sock-puppet didn't try his hand at already. Tarc (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No new sources yet other than the news broadcasts of it on 24 Oras, News to Go, Saksi, and Tropang Potchi. Silverseren^C 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So, things already rejected by others in the places names above. Gotcha. Silly me must have assumed that "future prospects of notability for the subject" was a claim based on something demonstrable rather than the the ARS keep em all dogma. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• HTD only considered Saksi and Tropang Potchi above, not the other two. Coverage just once from a television news source is one thing, coverage three times from three separate news sources is quite another. Silverseren^C 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The other two are also GMA news programs. I won't be surprised if these 4 programs used identical footage or even the videos aired for each show were identical. That means they're all one source. The "barely" notable article is hinged on one mention on each of these 4 shows and nothing else. It's like a news program reporting on an internet video that's gone viral then never to be reported again. –HTD 01:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• GMA is one of the largest television networks in the Philippines and own a number of different channels, stations, and shows. Almost all news channels in the US and even throughout the world are owned by just a few huge corporations. We don't consider all news from the separate stations in the network (or even with newspapers) to be one news source. That would make it almost impossible to write articles. The coverage is from four separate shows, so they are four separate sources. And it is spurious to say that it will never be reported on again when it's only been around for a year. Silverseren^C 02:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I know what GMA Network is -- if you have TV in the Philippines you can't avoid watching it. As for single sources, from WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Like I said before, it doesn't matter if it's very new, in fact it is an advantage since if it's truly notable, there's bound to be at least one article or report about the subject per day on the internet at the peak of its popularity. Has the game reached its peak of popularity? By the number of sources, no. Hence it has to go. If it does, ask an admin to restore the article, or better yet write a completely different draft. Do you seriously want to keep the draft in its current crappy state? If ever multiple references come up in the future, then write a completely new and different article. No one's actually deleting the article in a sense it can't be retrieved anymore, it's still there, only that admins can see it. Just yesterday, the draft article has been viewed 214 times! Clearly someone's benefiting from the exposure of the article either on the mainspace, userspace, or draftspace. –HTD 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, I want to improve the draft so that it is in a state that can be presentable once it reaches notability. I have already started doing that by rewriting the lede and removing the two, large unreferenced sections. I am currently working on this draft, which is why I don't want it to be deleted. (And considering that Rupert Murdoch owns much of television and paper news today, I don't think the GNG is meant to be interpreted as strictly as you are doing.) Silverseren^C 03:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see that you've been doing something on the draft, like taking out the trashy bits, but unless some new source comes out you're stuck with removing the trashy bits. You can store the draft off-wiki: that's what I personally do lately. As for singular source, I'm sorry if I haven't made it clear: it's a good bet that the footage used for all 4 programs was identical; they could've just modified it to suit the theme of the program. That's what I meant with one source. And thank goodness Murdoch can't legally set up a media empire in the Philippines. –HTD 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. It wasn't abandoned, the creator was blocked for aggressively reacting to the proper deletion of the article, and has been socking and wikilawyering to find any way he can to keep this - he emailed me to ask me to list it here (and admitted to socking into the bargain). There have been no reliable sources presented to support the notability of this sport, and I haven't been able to find any. I did find "CIRCBALL .... new version of Basketball by a Filipino" here, and the author is clearly a Filipino (perhaps *the* Filipino). Searching also finds an author selling an iTunes app and an eBook of the rules, and then there's nothing but primary sources (someone has created a web site for it), Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and blogs, and the small handful of non-RS sources mentioned by others. GalingPinas is trying to promote something that he either very likely had a hand in inventing himself, or is connected with in some way. (And while I obviously won't publish it, the email address he contacted me from supports a connection with the sport). This all adds up to a concerted promotion effort for something that has not achieved notability, and really doesn't seem likely to in the near future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Um...news broadcasts aren't reliable sources? Silverseren^C 21:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You get to have your say, I get to have mine, everyone else gets to have theirs, and none of us has to justify our opinion to any other !voter. And then someone will judge the consensus and close it accordingly - that's the way it works here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Deletion discussions are supposed to be just that, discussions. So, I am questioning what you mean when you say, "There have been no reliable sources presented to support the notability of this sport", when there have clearly been news broadcasts about the sport. So, yes, you do have to "justify your opinion". I mean, you don't have to, but then it's not a very good argument within the discussion if i'm refuting you and you're not responding to it. Silverseren^C 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Look, if you have provided references to what you believe are reliable sources that demonstrate notability (or in the case of the incubator, plausible potential notability), and the consensus supports you, that's fine and I'll support the outcome. But in the meantime, I'm absolutely not interested in arguing it head-to-head with you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Okay. :/ Silverseren^C 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Actually, I'm sorry if that sounded a bit too dismissive - I do have great respect for you and for the ARS, and I'm open to changing my mind. So what I'll do sometime tomorrow is find time to re-review the incubator draft, and I'll re-examine my current opinion based on that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per SilverSeren. This is scratch space, not main space. The article isn't offensive, it's just in the process of development. Surely we're allowed to have some space for articles we're working on, and they don't have to meet all our standards from the first character typed, only when they're in mainspace. We should only delete pages in scratch space in extreme cases; this isn't one of them. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Delete Creation of this article violated WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors, and the violation was done knowingly. I'll block the next editor I see pull a stunt like this: it's inexcusable.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per the very section you linked, I have independent reasons for accepting the content, namely that I think it could become notable in the future and it is, clearly, verifiable. I have removed all of the unreferenced sections. Silverseren^C 22:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "It could become notable in the future" - WP:CRYSTAL. Stuff isn't supposed to sit around in userspace, or in "incubator space", indefinitly awaiting notability. I might also note that this case is somewhat similar to the plethora of aircraft accident articles created by the now-banned prolific sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick; occasionally, he came up with a notable subject that Wikipedia needed an article about. However, instead of saying "this is notable, we'll wink and nod", we deleted the article in question, and started a new one on the same topic that did not involve the blocked (as he was at the time) editor. This should be the same here, instead of allowing an "article" (abandoned draft, or whatver it is wished to call it) that was created in bad faith by a block-evading sockpuppet, to be restored, just justifying his gaming the system, flaunting AfD (not to mention WP:DENY), and sockpuppeting. I should point out that (and if I'm mistaken, I'll gladly take my crow with ketchup) items in userspace, Wikipedia space, etc. are indexed by Google and turn up in searches, thus making the fairly blatant promototional aims of the creator fulfilled too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is already on the edge of notability. All of the sources currently in the article, along with the news broadcasts, occurred this year. If the issue is that there are edits in the history by the blocked user in question, then, fine, i'll recreate the draft from scratch, but it's going to end up almost exactly the same since i'm going to be using the same references. It seems like a waste of time, but whatever. And I suppose you should take your...crow with ketchup then, as article drafts in userspace, incubator space, or whatever that isn't mainspace are often NOINDEXED so that they don't show up in searches and this draft has been NOINDEXED as well. Silverseren^C 00:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You have no independent reasons for creating this article, SilverSeren. You don't have a history of creating articles related to Circball. You don't have any demonstrated interest in similar articles. You knowingly and intentionally assisted a banned editor achieve his goals, after having been specifically informed that the request made of you was being made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor. As I said: I see you do this again, and I will block you without hesitation.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have an independent interest in working on this article for the fact that I think that it just barely can meet notability, but it needs work to express that. I have a history of working on badly written articles and improving them both at AfD and elsewhere. I have a history of starting a Wikiproject that works on drafts of articles from both retired and banned users. If we're going to go with threats here, then i'll see your adminship recalled and removed if you try that. Silverseren^C 00:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And I will see to it that you lose that fight, if you really plan on taking it that far. All of this was one insipid editor trolling and fighting to get some amateur hour tripe into an article, you do this project a disservice by giving that clown exactly what he wants, when the opposition to the article was, IIRC, unanimous. Drop the stick and stop fighting for this worthless piece of garbage. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• And I didn't vote Keep in that AfD. The closer even said that it was "not yet notable". There is absolutely no policy based reason why I can't work on a draft of the article. Silverseren^C 02:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's all just calm down a bit here... I know you have passionate feelings for the article Silver seren but sometimes you just have to let things go. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let go and have other users determine what I can and cannot work on? What would be the point of even editing at all? Silverseren^C 02:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly in cases like this it is either let go voluntarily or be forced to let go due to protection. We protect pages therefore telling others what they can and cannot work on all the time! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We protect mainspace articles (and sometimes noticeboards) when there is a high amount of vandalism. This is a draft article that I am working on in non-mainspace and that is neither offensive or attacking anyone. Protection has nothing to do with it. This is not a case I am willing to give up on, because the precedent it would set is horrific. Silverseren^C 02:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has NOTHING to do with precidents either! You know as well as I do that wikipedia does not operate on precidents alone otherwise one admin could lock down the entire wiki and we would not be able to do anything about it due to the precident set! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 02:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think WP:PRECEDENT would disagree with you. I meant precedent in regards to a small consensus made in one discussion that deleting article drafts that a few users feel is non-notable or deleting article drafts that are not yet notable is okay. Either one would be a horrible precedent to set. Silverseren^C 02:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't get it do you? This article was made in a DISRUPTIVE manner by a CONFIRMED SOCKPUPPETER and as such we are setting the precedent that non-notable drafts MADE, DELETED BY COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AND RECRATED BY SOCKPUPPETS OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR AFTER SAID DELETION WAS SOLIDLY ENDORSED! should be deleted. If anything this is a GOOD precedent to set! Why are you so afraid of that? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 03:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already stated multiple times that I am fine re-creating the article "from scratch", if that's what is necessary, even though I would be working from the same sources, so it wouldn't come out much different. Is the issue that the blocked user has made edits to this version and we want to work from a clean version without any edits in the history from him or is it that once a blocked user has been involved with a topic, the topic can never be worked on ever again? If the former, i'm fine with re-creating it. If the latter, that is a precedent that I am going to fight tooth and nail against. Silverseren^C 03:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you pay any attention you will notice that there are A SHITLOAD of topics that banned users have been involved in which are still up. There is no need to fight against it as the opposite precedent has already been set! This is a case where you just have to start from scratch. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 03:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You never really answered my question from above though. Is the issue that a blocked user has edited the draft the problem? Because if it's something i'm going to be editing (as i've already been doing), not very much of that user's information will be the same. Or is the issue that they are listed in the history, so you want a new version of the article without them in it around? This is why i'm asking. Because both G4 and G5 of the CSD criteria state that if another user begins making significant changes to the article (or draft in this case), then it doesn't matter if it's a recreation of a deleted article or something that was made by a blocked user. The "precedent" already set is that any user in good standing can adopt and work on a draft of an article both from something deleted at AfD and something made by a blocked user. Silverseren^C 03:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue IS that the indef blocked (basically banned} editor is shown as having started the article. There is also the supplementary issue of having the sockpuppeter being rewarded for socking by having their content on wikipedia anyway. Please just let it go, come back in a month or two once the socker has lost interest and start a new draft from a COMPLETELY BLANK page. This way the socker is not getting rewarded and you get your article. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 03:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then should we go and propose to have CSD #G5 changed to take this into account, that all pages made by banned user should be deleted always? The thing is, if I assume Galing's motivation, all they want is an article on Circball, whatever that means. So you can't really avoid "rewarding" him, but i'm also not going to care about his opinion on this article and i'm going to do my best to make a neutral, well-formatted article. We don't decide things in terms of article content based on punishing users or avoiding rewarding them. That would be an impossible way to edit an encyclopedia and make it likewise impossible to maintain NPOV. Silverseren^C 03:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• GalingPinas is not a banned editor -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes he or she is banned.[2]. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That's blocked, not banned -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get you. Still feel the same Indef blocked or Banned we shouldn't pander to him. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Silverseren. If the Abandoned Drafts folks want it, they can have it (so long as it is noindexed). This is not mainspace, it's not a copyvio, it's not an attack page - it may be non-notable, but that is hardly relevant in project space. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:44, 21 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - Editor shouldn't be rewarded for disruption, socking, etc. If this topic is indeed notable, someone else will write an article about it sooner or later. In the meantime, the encyclopedia isn't worse off for not having it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Um, yeah, I want to write an article on it. Silverseren^C 06:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So, go ahead and do it -- but do you really this draft, made by a disruptive socking editor, to do that? Presumably you have a computer you can copy it to, to work from? Are you allowing your own interest in the subject to influence your administrative responsibilities? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've actually stated multiple times elsewhere in this discussion that, if I have to, i'm fine with writing the article from scratch. I still think it's tedious, since the content isn't going to be much different, but whatever. The people i'm largely arguing with are the ones saying that because it got deleted, it can't be worked on any more. Silverseren^C 07:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sure, just provide sources that show that the topic is notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I already did above, coverage from 24 Oras, News to Go, Saksi, and Tropang Potchi. Silverseren^C 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circball showed that it was not notable (yet). If there are no reliable sources showing current notability, then there is not the possibility of writing a proper article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for hosting drafts for non-notable topics (WP:WEBHOST) and it doesn't make suppositions about the future notability of topics (WP:CRYSTALBALL. When new sources appear and show notability, anyone can use those new sources to write an article based on those sources, which still don't seem to exist. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• See, Beyond My Ken, it's this sort of vote that i'm combating here, the vote that is not actually following the policy that is being linked. Let's see, WP:WEBHOST first, I think. This article draft is not a personal web page, a file, being used as a dating service, or a memorial. It is not being used in any shape or form that a social network is, it's being used to draft a potentially encyclopedic topic, so WEBHOST is out right away. Next we have WP:CRYSTALBALL. And right away I see that it's discussing articles in mainspace. That's completely useless. Article drafts on articles that are potentially notable or likely to become notable are allowed. That is exclusively what the Article Incubator was about, after all.

• All in all, in summary, article drafts do not fall under non-notability unless there are a very obvious NN CSD case, such as a draft about your family pets or something to that extent. This draft is discussing a subject that already has some coverage, so it is far beyond that threshold. Silverseren^C 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question: Who said that users are allowed to indefinitely keep drafts of articles that they are working on? Particularly after the articles have been deleted? When I give people copies of deleted articles, I make it very clear that they only get them for a limited time, before they'll be deleted again. I would think that WP:NOTWEBHOST is sufficient justification to make stuff like this go away; G11 seems close to applying here as well. Given that admins are allowed to decline requests for userfication, it's not like someone can assert that there is an automatic right to keep drafts around after they've been deleted under process. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indefinitely, no, for a fair amount of time, yes. Considering it's only be a day here, I think more time than that is required. The usual length of time is 1-2 years, though it varies. You'd cause an uproar if you went around trying to delete article drafts from active users. WP:STALEDRAFT arguments only go through at MfD when the user in question is retired, blocked, or not very active. Otherwise, they never work. But it's not the length of time i'm arguing about, it's the completely invalid arguments that people are making saying that an article deleted at AfD cannot be worked on in a draft. We all know that isn't true, yet that fallacious argument is still being made, for example, below. One of the examples that the article incubator did was hold currently non-notable subjects, such as films, and work on them over time, eventually gaining enough sources for notability. Silverseren^C 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Article was deleted at AFD. Non-notable subject. Crystalball arguments that it "might become notable in the future" are utterly unconvincing. Keeping this just rewards a disruptive wikilawyering and sockpuppeting editor who is indef blocked from editing. Keeping this just rewards those who gaming the system and can find a soft-hearted editor to continue their efforts after they are blocked. Edison (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.