Power Rangers Ninja Steel – Procedurally closed. This request looks like an exercise in sock- or meatpuppetry. The article was salted because of sock recreations, and now only IPs and a checkuser-blocked editor have joined this request. Any future request should be made by a registered editor in good standing. – Sandstein 10:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Power Rangers Ninja Steel (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Page was deleted by someone who believes the person who wrote the article was banned. I think the article should be reviewed and not deleted until it's proven that they're indeed banned. 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] undelete. Don't know made the article, but it should be restored at least for the length of this discussion. After all this is confirmed by reliable source to be the next Power Ranger season. 38.86.168.55 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per above. Not only did the banned person get the article deleted, but now it can't be created again despite legitimate sources. 166.171.184.177 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I'd be willing to write the article, but the article is indeed blocked from creation. I'll try WP:RFPP and see if someone can undo the protection se we can write it. Sales Actor MSK (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC). User was blocked.[reply] comment: I'm restoring this discussion as only the above use was blocked, not the person who started it.47.23.36.122 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Power Rangers Ninja Steel – Procedurally closed. This request looks like an exercise in sock- or meatpuppetry. The article was salted because of sock recreations, and now only IPs and a checkuser-blocked editor have joined this request. Any future request should be made by a registered editor in good standing. – Sandstein 10:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted by someone who believes the person who wrote the article was banned. I think the article should be reviewed and not deleted until it's proven that they're indeed banned. 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) 50.74.207.50 (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undelete. Don't know made the article, but it should be restored at least for the length of this discussion. After all this is confirmed by reliable source to be the next Power Ranger season. 38.86.168.55 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. Not only did the banned person get the article deleted, but now it can't be created again despite legitimate sources. 166.171.184.177 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'd be willing to write the article, but the article is indeed blocked from creation. I'll try WP:RFPP and see if someone can undo the protection se we can write it. Sales Actor MSK (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC). User was blocked.[reply]
comment: I'm restoring this discussion as only the above use was blocked, not the person who started it.47.23.36.122 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth – Overturn and Relist. The conversation went off in a number of different directions. I don't see any consensus on the standing of 166.176.57.187 to bring this to DRV, so no action on that. There is, however, pretty good agreement that this was an inappropriate WP:U5, so overturning that. There was no consensus on the question of whether this draft should be deleted, assuming proper process had been followed. DRV is not the place to decide that question anyway, so relisting it at MFD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) We didn't discuss it for 12 hours. Heavily debated deletion on policy grounds,no support for a U5 claim. 166.176.57.187 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] The deletion review process requires you to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before lodging a request here. Can you please advise why you chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] That'll be because it's the IP with the weird crush on Ricky81682. I doubt we should feed their infatuation. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure by default due to the nominator failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I suggest this is speedily closed as the obvious trolling it is. This is an unsourced promotional biography which was the sole contribution of the editor who created it over five years ago, and who has not been seen since. WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Misuse of WP:CSD#U5. Leaving that aside, this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Good call. Drafts should not remain in userspace indefinitely even if they are not BLP/overly promotional/unsourced. This should have been deleted years ago. Opposition during AfD has no solid basis in policy, speedy deletion has. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, U5 seems to fit the case here. I find the idea that BLP provisions should not apply in the draft space to be disturbing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply] @Lankveil: There's arguments that WP:V doesn't apply to drafts so hoaxes are being opposed on the basis that you can't delete it as a hoax because the actual truth of what is claimed is irrelevant since it's just a draft. It's utterly bizarre. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I can't see the article. But if it's been around for years it's not clear why a speedy for U5 was appropriate or needed. BLP issues were raised at the MfD but not settled. overturn and (re)list at MfD unless someone has a claim that there is a true BLP violation (attack page, etc.) here. Draft articles are not U5 targets, they are for MfD. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] The fact that it was not noticed for years is not really relevant. Remember, we're building an encyclopaedia. This article would be instantly deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in mainspace, creation of the user page is the sole contribution of the editor (whose only two edits, ever, were to this page) and that user has not been back in over five years. There is no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose to this page. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] What a wreck. Between its age (the only non-minor edits were over a two-day period in January 2010), the quality of its content (it would have been an A7 in articlespace, and barely skirts G11 outside it), and the quality of its MFD (where I can't find even one edit that was both accurate and primarily about this draft), I don't object to its deletion. On the other hand, there's no way this was a U5 - U5 does not apply to drafts of articles, or anything that even looks like a draft of an article. Gripping hand, the nominator here is a banned user, and should have just been reverted instead of indulged. Take no action. —Cryptic 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, or rather relist at MfD. This was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. U5 is for "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", and producing encyclopedia articles is one of Wikipedia's goals. Admittedly the resulting article is unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, but WP:NOT isn't one of them. Hut 8.5 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment - User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp was deleted by the same administrator under the same speedy deletion criteria even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp resulted in userification prior that day. It had previously survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. This is the proper place to challenge the result of a close; improper unilateral action should not be taken. Furthermore, and more on point to this discussion, WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] If you want to raise a DRV on this other article then you are free to do so, adding it here as a different case seems to be little more than muddying the water. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Just showing the event isn't isolated and drawing a comparison. Not sure about personally opening a DRV on it at this time, though someone else potentially could, it's being a discussed at other places at this time as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Relist. Even though it's unlikely to survive MfD, a contentious debate shouldn't be short-circuited with fallacious reasoning as appears to have happened here. Rebb ing 06:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] The DRV regulars had a very recent policy discussion about this exact subject here. I have nothing to add to what I said in that venue.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment If this page is too abusive to be temporarily undeleted can there be clarification on some relevant matters. Which user created it? When was it last edited? Was deletion urgent? Did it have an AFC header? Did it say it was a draft? Was it a BLP? If so did it have any references at all or contentious claims or was it entirely contentious or exclusively promotional? Thincat (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] It's not too abusive; it's just that nobody asked. I've tempundeleted it. —Cryptic 15:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. I was wondering if the strong antipathy to the page is because it was in some way abusive. I now understand that it is because it is an edge case. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. as obvious misuse of WP:CSD#U5. It may be a lousy article draft. but lousy article drafts on plausible article subjects simply don't qualify for speedy deletion, especially since there was a good faith, guideline-based XFD debate in progress. Completely unjustified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletionU5 says "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, (#1 goal is writing articles-this was hopeless) where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages (check), with the exception of plausible drafts (it was not a plausable draft of an article for mainspace) and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. (does not meet anything on that list)" Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] It looks like a plausible draft to me. By that I mean, it looks like the early stages of a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article about a topic that is not obviously inappropriate. Can you please explain the thought process that leads you to conclude it is not a plausible draft? Thparkth (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)#[reply] Superficially, that argument has some merit. In this case, however, it is fatally undermined by the fact that the user has made no other edits at all, and has not touched this page in five years. That undoubtedly looks more like a WEBHOST violation than an actual attempt to write an article. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Your assertion that a plausible draft is turned into a WP:WEBHOST violation merely by editor inactivity and the passage of time is unsupported by policy and consensus. Thparkth (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. This was a clear attempt at a draft; it does not qualify for WP:U5. Whether intentional or not, the speedy deletion during an MfD amounted to a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I think were that article in mainspace today, it would not be a good candidate for an A7. Photographers are sometimes notable, so being a photographer whose work has been published in several well-known magazines is a WP:CCS. It probably would not meet GNG and would be deleted after discussion, though. Are you saying that this was an IAR delete, not a U5? If we want to decide as a community that user space is to be cleaned up, then we should do so by documenting the new consensus at WP:UP and WP:CSD - not by applying CSD criteria in ways we personally believe they should be applied. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] To clarify JzG, the reason we are at DRV is because using your bit to supervote is not the intended purpose of the mop. You clearly feel that MfD should be used to keep user space tidy, but opinions on the subject are running both ways and enforcing your opinion via deletion while the subject is under discussion seems inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] However, that is not what I did. I looked at the page and reviewed it in context with the user's non-existent history. I paid no attention at all to anything else - no vote, super or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. U5 does not apply to a draft article, no matter how unsourced it is. It is best to let the discussion run its course. Esquivalience ^t 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn It was a draft and so not U5 and since deletion wasn't urgent it shouldn't have been speedied during an MFD anyway. Poor behaviour by the closer. If the MFD had been allowed to continue I would have been sympathetic to it being deleted because it a "no-hope draft" (no indication of importance) which hasn't been edited for a long time. I don't at all agree with the suggestion above that MFD can't delete on such grounds if there is consensus for that. Such a deletion would in my view be very different from deleting a seemingly abandoned draft of worthwhile quality or deleting a recent poor draft. If there are a lot of such drafts and if there is a consistency of decision then a new speedy criterion could be proposed. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment WOW the amount of words here compared to the actual draft is incredible. We have what reads like a vanity piece, the apparent sole contribution of an editor 5 years ago, nominated by a banned user as part of a campaign against a specific editor. Good to see we all have our priorities straight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I see two reasons why this is actually important: CSD is easily open to abuse where the only meaningful check-and-balance is DRV. As such, it's important we get this right. IMO, deleting "stale" drafts and stuff is yet another way to drive away potential contributors. Sure, 95% of these folks are never going to contribute usefully. But when doing this for 1000 users, that might be a significant number of contributors we've driven away. And, again IMO, all for no significant benefit. So yeah, to me this is an important issue. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] You are right it's important that we have checks and balances such that those wishing to troll other editors can get a fair hearing, and that contributor (who isn't present here or indeed anywhere it appears) with these two edits five years ago we might be driving off. It's that significant that these few words get such coverage and so many words from so many wikipedians, whilst real articles etc. with real editors at DRV/MFD/XFD can barely raise a comment, whilst those articles/drafts get no improvements. Yep you've convinced me that this is all totally in perspective. You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] The point I'm trying to make isn't that this page is particularly special. It's all the other pages that will and/or are seeing the same outcome that I'm worried about. In the same way, some court cases are pretty minor for the specific case, but important overall. e.g., Roe vs. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply] Relist for a proper discussion. This is not the placeto decide the merits. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn U5 and relist for a proper discussion. The thing should still be deleted but it should be deleted because it deserves to be deleted. Otherwise, I still say that if anyone wants to adopt this thing, I think that would kill all further arguing here, unless again people take merit to the ridiculous concerns about an editor who five years ago put up a promotional draft and never did anything since then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] I agree, looking at the temp undeleted draft, I see something with no chance of establishing notability, and too much promotional aspect to allow it to lie around live indefinitely. I even oppose allowing someone else to adopt it, its age is irrelevant (WP:STALE is not a good guideline). It should be deleted with reference to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, but is it not a CSD candidate on any criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Draft was a credible draft for mainspace, and for that reason is U5-ineligible. Secondly, there were valid "keep" votes at MfD, which override speedy deletion, as speedy deletion is for routine cases for which there is no desire for two-sided discussion. There is a recent trend of liberal interpretation of the CSD criteria that must be repudiated. Admins are not the ruling class of Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth – Overturn and Relist. The conversation went off in a number of different directions. I don't see any consensus on the standing of 166.176.57.187 to bring this to DRV, so no action on that. There is, however, pretty good agreement that this was an inappropriate WP:U5, so overturning that. There was no consensus on the question of whether this draft should be deleted, assuming proper process had been followed. DRV is not the place to decide that question anyway, so relisting it at MFD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

We didn't discuss it for 12 hours. Heavily debated deletion on policy grounds,no support for a U5 claim. 166.176.57.187 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review process requires you to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before lodging a request here. Can you please advise why you chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be because it's the IP with the weird crush on Ricky81682. I doubt we should feed their infatuation. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure by default due to the nominator failing to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this is speedily closed as the obvious trolling it is. This is an unsourced promotional biography which was the sole contribution of the editor who created it over five years ago, and who has not been seen since. WP:CSD#U5. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Misuse of WP:CSD#U5. Leaving that aside, this XfD was obviously controversial, the outcome non-obvious, and the deletion non-urgent, so speedy deleting the page while the XfD was in progress was a poor decision - the ultimate supervote. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good call. Drafts should not remain in userspace indefinitely even if they are not BLP/overly promotional/unsourced. This should have been deleted years ago. Opposition during AfD has no solid basis in policy, speedy deletion has. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, U5 seems to fit the case here. I find the idea that BLP provisions should not apply in the draft space to be disturbing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankveil: There's arguments that WP:V doesn't apply to drafts so hoaxes are being opposed on the basis that you can't delete it as a hoax because the actual truth of what is claimed is irrelevant since it's just a draft. It's utterly bizarre. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the article. But if it's been around for years it's not clear why a speedy for U5 was appropriate or needed. BLP issues were raised at the MfD but not settled. overturn and (re)list at MfD unless someone has a claim that there is a true BLP violation (attack page, etc.) here. Draft articles are not U5 targets, they are for MfD. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it was not noticed for years is not really relevant. Remember, we're building an encyclopaedia. This article would be instantly deleted as WP:CSD#A7 in mainspace, creation of the user page is the sole contribution of the editor (whose only two edits, ever, were to this page) and that user has not been back in over five years. There is no conceivable encyclopaedic purpose to this page. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a wreck. Between its age (the only non-minor edits were over a two-day period in January 2010), the quality of its content (it would have been an A7 in articlespace, and barely skirts G11 outside it), and the quality of its MFD (where I can't find even one edit that was both accurate and primarily about this draft), I don't object to its deletion. On the other hand, there's no way this was a U5 - U5 does not apply to drafts of articles, or anything that even looks like a draft of an article. Gripping hand, the nominator here is a banned user, and should have just been reverted instead of indulged. Take no action. —Cryptic 03:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, or rather relist at MfD. This was an attempt to write an encyclopedia article. U5 is for "writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals", and producing encyclopedia articles is one of Wikipedia's goals. Admittedly the resulting article is unsuitable for mainspace for a variety of reasons, but WP:NOT isn't one of them. Hut 8.5 07:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp was deleted by the same administrator under the same speedy deletion criteria even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Knapp resulted in userification prior that day. It had previously survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp. This is the proper place to challenge the result of a close; improper unilateral action should not be taken. Furthermore, and more on point to this discussion, WP:U5 doesn't apply to pages that have survived deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to raise a DRV on this other article then you are free to do so, adding it here as a different case seems to be little more than muddying the water. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just showing the event isn't isolated and drawing a comparison. Not sure about personally opening a DRV on it at this time, though someone else potentially could, it's being a discussed at other places at this time as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Even though it's unlikely to survive MfD, a contentious debate shouldn't be short-circuited with fallacious reasoning as appears to have happened here. Rebb ing 06:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV regulars had a very recent policy discussion about this exact subject here. I have nothing to add to what I said in that venue.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page is too abusive to be temporarily undeleted can there be clarification on some relevant matters. Which user created it? When was it last edited? Was deletion urgent? Did it have an AFC header? Did it say it was a draft? Was it a BLP? If so did it have any references at all or contentious claims or was it entirely contentious or exclusively promotional? Thincat (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too abusive; it's just that nobody asked. I've tempundeleted it. —Cryptic 15:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I was wondering if the strong antipathy to the page is because it was in some way abusive. I now understand that it is because it is an edge case. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. as obvious misuse of WP:CSD#U5. It may be a lousy article draft. but lousy article drafts on plausible article subjects simply don't qualify for speedy deletion, especially since there was a good faith, guideline-based XFD debate in progress. Completely unjustified. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletionU5 says "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, (#1 goal is writing articles-this was hopeless) where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages (check), with the exception of plausible drafts (it was not a plausable draft of an article for mainspace) and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. (does not meet anything on that list)" Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a plausible draft to me. By that I mean, it looks like the early stages of a good-faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article about a topic that is not obviously inappropriate. Can you please explain the thought process that leads you to conclude it is not a plausible draft? Thparkth (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)#[reply]

Superficially, that argument has some merit. In this case, however, it is fatally undermined by the fact that the user has made no other edits at all, and has not touched this page in five years. That undoubtedly looks more like a WEBHOST violation than an actual attempt to write an article. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that a plausible draft is turned into a WP:WEBHOST violation merely by editor inactivity and the passage of time is unsupported by policy and consensus. Thparkth (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This was a clear attempt at a draft; it does not qualify for WP:U5. Whether intentional or not, the speedy deletion during an MfD amounted to a supervote. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then move it to mainspace (where it will be deleted as WP:CSD#A7) or leave it deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles abandoned years ago in user space by users who basically never edited at all, form no obvious part of that endeavour. We currently have a very stupid circular argument where people say you can't delete no-hope "drafts" in user space because they are drafts, you can't move them to main space where they will inevitably be nuked because that is "disruptive", so basically all crap must be preserved in perpetuity in order to save the feelings of editors-in-name-only. It's bonkers. Crap should be tidied up. Requiring people to bring A SHRUBBERY! in order to do so, and then saying it's is the wrong kind of shrubbery, is really not a good use of anybody's time here. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think were that article in mainspace today, it would not be a good candidate for an A7. Photographers are sometimes notable, so being a photographer whose work has been published in several well-known magazines is a WP:CCS. It probably would not meet GNG and would be deleted after discussion, though. Are you saying that this was an IAR delete, not a U5? If we want to decide as a community that user space is to be cleaned up, then we should do so by documenting the new consensus at WP:UP and WP:CSD - not by applying CSD criteria in ways we personally believe they should be applied. VQuakr (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify JzG, the reason we are at DRV is because using your bit to supervote is not the intended purpose of the mop. You clearly feel that MfD should be used to keep user space tidy, but opinions on the subject are running both ways and enforcing your opinion via deletion while the subject is under discussion seems inappropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, that is not what I did. I looked at the page and reviewed it in context with the user's non-existent history. I paid no attention at all to anything else - no vote, super or otherwise. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. U5 does not apply to a draft article, no matter how unsourced it is. It is best to let the discussion run its course. Esquivalience ^t 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It was a draft and so not U5 and since deletion wasn't urgent it shouldn't have been speedied during an MFD anyway. Poor behaviour by the closer. If the MFD had been allowed to continue I would have been sympathetic to it being deleted because it a "no-hope draft" (no indication of importance) which hasn't been edited for a long time. I don't at all agree with the suggestion above that MFD can't delete on such grounds if there is consensus for that. Such a deletion would in my view be very different from deleting a seemingly abandoned draft of worthwhile quality or deleting a recent poor draft. If there are a lot of such drafts and if there is a consistency of decision then a new speedy criterion could be proposed. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WOW the amount of words here compared to the actual draft is incredible. We have what reads like a vanity piece, the apparent sole contribution of an editor 5 years ago, nominated by a banned user as part of a campaign against a specific editor. Good to see we all have our priorities straight. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two reasons why this is actually important:
  - CSD is easily open to abuse where the only meaningful check-and-balance is DRV. As such, it's important we get this right.
  - IMO, deleting "stale" drafts and stuff is yet another way to drive away potential contributors. Sure, 95% of these folks are never going to contribute usefully. But when doing this for 1000 users, that might be a significant number of contributors we've driven away. And, again IMO, all for no significant benefit.

So yeah, to me this is an important issue. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right it's important that we have checks and balances such that those wishing to troll other editors can get a fair hearing, and that contributor (who isn't present here or indeed anywhere it appears) with these two edits five years ago we might be driving off. It's that significant that these few words get such coverage and so many words from so many wikipedians, whilst real articles etc. with real editors at DRV/MFD/XFD can barely raise a comment, whilst those articles/drafts get no improvements. Yep you've convinced me that this is all totally in perspective.

You know if this troll hadn't bothered listing this here for their alternative motive, this likely would never have even been considered, so declaring this as something significant overall to wikipedia is somewhat hollow. Don't get me wrong, I think both sides of this have a loss of perspective, those going and spending times even listing this sort of stuff for deletion (and those pressing the button), this should be of so little real significance. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I'm trying to make isn't that this page is particularly special. It's all the other pages that will and/or are seeing the same outcome that I'm worried about. In the same way, some court cases are pretty minor for the specific case, but important overall. e.g., Roe vs. Wade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relist for a proper discussion. This is not the placeto decide the merits. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn U5 and relist for a proper discussion. The thing should still be deleted but it should be deleted because it deserves to be deleted. Otherwise, I still say that if anyone wants to adopt this thing, I think that would kill all further arguing here, unless again people take merit to the ridiculous concerns about an editor who five years ago put up a promotional draft and never did anything since then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, looking at the temp undeleted draft, I see something with no chance of establishing notability, and too much promotional aspect to allow it to lie around live indefinitely. I even oppose allowing someone else to adopt it, its age is irrelevant (WP:STALE is not a good guideline). It should be deleted with reference to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, but is it not a CSD candidate on any criterion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Draft was a credible draft for mainspace, and for that reason is U5-ineligible. Secondly, there were valid "keep" votes at MfD, which override speedy deletion, as speedy deletion is for routine cases for which there is no desire for two-sided discussion. There is a recent trend of liberal interpretation of the CSD criteria that must be repudiated. Admins are not the ruling class of Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Clay J. Cockerell – No further action required. It's unclear from the discussion here if the original WP:G11 should be endorsed or not, but it's kind of moot. During the course of this DRV, the article was substantially edited, and there is reasonable agreement here that in its current form, it's acceptable. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Clay J. Cockerell (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I created this article last year and it was deleted for what the administrator says was too promotional. I requested that the article be undeleted and I was told that it was definiately promotional and that it would not be restored and that I would have to come here. According to the reason the administrator says it was deleted, the page would have to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The criteria also says "if a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." The subject is a scholar and doctor and is notable (please see his references in Google Scholar). I would request that the article be undeleted as it is not promotional in my opinion. If it is considered promotional by others, I am not sure that it is such that it would need to be completely rewritten. Thank you for your consideration. Studenttopics (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Can we get a temp. undelete here or could someone otherwise provide a copy of the article? Hobit (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored history for discussison here. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I was the editor who nominated it for deletion. It is possible that the individual is notable, and that a new article can be written. But this one is an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles don;'t continually referto the subject as Dr., don't emphasise the person's hobbies, don't contain text like "He is married to his high school sweetheart, ..., also a native Texan and they wed in..." , don't advertise the person's products that they sell to their patient, don't list things like "being named as an honoree for Who's Who in Health Care by the Dallas Business Journal" as notable awards. What does show these features is a person's web page, and that's where this sort of content belongs. The puffery here extends to giving local newspaper references for ""Abilenian enters medical school" and "Exam Lets Abilenian Skip Sophomore Year". That;s the kind of thing a fond parent puts in the family Christmas card--or that a promotional WP editor puts in when trying to add every scrap possible Yes, I could conceivably have rewritten it & tried to show notability, but it would have meant rewriting from scratch, for I consider not a single one of the paragraphs usable as they stand. But I've done too much helping promotional editors earn their pay at my expense, by substituting my proper work for their bad work. I'll still do it for an article someone really famous, for that serves the interests of the `encyclopedia and its readers. (In case it applies, I also would like to remind the editor of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. We at this time have no rule calling for the deletion of articles on the basis that they might violate the terms of use, but only do so on the article oontent. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. This was a good speedy deletion. Maybe an article can be written about this person in an appropriate tone, but it would indeed require a fundamental rewrite. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, this was a terrible article. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~not endorse~~ I understand why it was deleted, but I think creating a stub based on the article would have been just as easy as deletion (the first paragraph would be a reasonable, if not ideal, stub). At the same time, I don't think we want this article as-it-is around, so I can't !vote to overturn. So... Once the DRV is done I'll try to create a new article based on the old one and then I'll ask for a history undelete to keep attribution. It will be a lot shorter, but meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Allow the recreation. I generally worry about editing an article that has been temp undeleted so I was going to wait until we are done here. But HW did a better job than I would have, so net win! Hobit (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, the article in question was intensely promotional and there is no way it could be "fixed", you'd have to start from scratch. However, permit creation of a stub or other article on the topic if it can be well sourced and non-promotional. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply] With respect to Hobit, even the first paragraph is so full of puffery that it would need a fundamental rewrite. The last sentence is ok, but a single sentence does not an article make. This solidly meets both the letter and intent of G11; endorse. —Cryptic 03:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Sometimes, Wikipedians decide that an article on a topic would be acceptable but we don't want this article. The relevant essay is WP:TNT. This is slightly at odds with our deletion policy at WP:ATD, which says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Historically this used to be a contradiction which we resolved by refusing to delete fixable content, demanding that the content was fixed instead. However, nowadays this has been considerably simplified by the addition of a paragraph to WP:ATD lower down on the same page, which reads: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. A neutral, encyclopaedic article about Mr Cockerell would be acceptable. The deleted content was a vanity advertisement of the kind that does not belong on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. – the article never was taken to AfD. It was speedy deleted, so the "completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD" clause does not apply here. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thank you Cunard, I stand corrected. My position is that I have no objection to an article with this title existing if a user in good standing takes responsibility for it, and Hullaballoo appears to have done so.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. The article is ghastly, but cleanup would require extensive pruning/stubbing rather than a fundamental rewrite. Whacking about two-thirds of the text and light copyediting would be sufficient. That wouldn't be a fundamental rewrite, just about two minutes' editing at most. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Userfy to Hullaballoo so he can edit it for a couple of minutes and then restore when he feels it's ready. Don't mind it being restored if an editor in good standing takes responsibility for it.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 97 seconds work with my machete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] The old version of the article was WP:ADMASQ but not to a horrible degree so it should've been cleaned up instead of G11ed, saving time. Nonetheless, the article is fine now, and the subject is most likely notable (h = 40) so no concerns. Esquivalience ^t 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. WP:CSD#G11 says: This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. The deleted revision did not require a fundamental rewrite as demonstrated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup here. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Clay J. Cockerell – No further action required. It's unclear from the discussion here if the original WP:G11 should be endorsed or not, but it's kind of moot. During the course of this DRV, the article was substantially edited, and there is reasonable agreement here that in its current form, it's acceptable. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I created this article last year and it was deleted for what the administrator says was too promotional. I requested that the article be undeleted and I was told that it was definiately promotional and that it would not be restored and that I would have to come here. According to the reason the administrator says it was deleted, the page would have to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The criteria also says "if a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." The subject is a scholar and doctor and is notable (please see his references in Google Scholar). I would request that the article be undeleted as it is not promotional in my opinion. If it is considered promotional by others, I am not sure that it is such that it would need to be completely rewritten. Thank you for your consideration. Studenttopics (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a temp. undelete here or could someone otherwise provide a copy of the article? Hobit (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored history for discussison here. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I was the editor who nominated it for deletion. It is possible that the individual is notable, and that a new article can be written. But this one is an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles don;'t continually referto the subject as Dr., don't emphasise the person's hobbies, don't contain text like "He is married to his high school sweetheart, ..., also a native Texan and they wed in..." , don't advertise the person's products that they sell to their patient, don't list things like "being named as an honoree for Who's Who in Health Care by the Dallas Business Journal" as notable awards. What does show these features is a person's web page, and that's where this sort of content belongs. The puffery here extends to giving local newspaper references for ""Abilenian enters medical school" and "Exam Lets Abilenian Skip Sophomore Year". That;s the kind of thing a fond parent puts in the family Christmas card--or that a promotional WP editor puts in when trying to add every scrap possible Yes, I could conceivably have rewritten it & tried to show notability, but it would have meant rewriting from scratch, for I consider not a single one of the paragraphs usable as they stand. But I've done too much helping promotional editors earn their pay at my expense, by substituting my proper work for their bad work. I'll still do it for an article someone really famous, for that serves the interests of the `encyclopedia and its readers. (In case it applies, I also would like to remind the editor of our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. We at this time have no rule calling for the deletion of articles on the basis that they might violate the terms of use, but only do so on the article oontent. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a good speedy deletion. Maybe an article can be written about this person in an appropriate tone, but it would indeed require a fundamental rewrite. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this was a terrible article. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~not endorse~~ I understand why it was deleted, but I think creating a stub based on the article would have been just as easy as deletion (the first paragraph would be a reasonable, if not ideal, stub). At the same time, I don't think we want this article as-it-is around, so I can't !vote to overturn. So... Once the DRV is done I'll try to create a new article based on the old one and then I'll ask for a history undelete to keep attribution. It will be a lot shorter, but meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow the recreation. I generally worry about editing an article that has been temp undeleted so I was going to wait until we are done here. But HW did a better job than I would have, so net win! Hobit (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the article in question was intensely promotional and there is no way it could be "fixed", you'd have to start from scratch. However, permit creation of a stub or other article on the topic if it can be well sourced and non-promotional. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
With respect to Hobit, even the first paragraph is so full of puffery that it would need a fundamental rewrite. The last sentence is ok, but a single sentence does not an article make. This solidly meets both the letter and intent of G11; endorse. —Cryptic 03:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, Wikipedians decide that an article on a topic would be acceptable but we don't want this article. The relevant essay is WP:TNT. This is slightly at odds with our deletion policy at WP:ATD, which says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Historically this used to be a contradiction which we resolved by refusing to delete fixable content, demanding that the content was fixed instead. However, nowadays this has been considerably simplified by the addition of a paragraph to WP:ATD lower down on the same page, which reads: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. A neutral, encyclopaedic article about Mr Cockerell would be acceptable. The deleted content was a vanity advertisement of the kind that does not belong on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD." This appears to be what has happened and it appears to have been done in accordance with consensus and policy. – the article never was taken to AfD. It was speedy deleted, so the "completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD" clause does not apply here. Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cunard, I stand corrected. My position is that I have no objection to an article with this title existing if a user in good standing takes responsibility for it, and Hullaballoo appears to have done so.—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The article is ghastly, but cleanup would require extensive pruning/stubbing rather than a fundamental rewrite. Whacking about two-thirds of the text and light copyediting would be sufficient. That wouldn't be a fundamental rewrite, just about two minutes' editing at most. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Hullaballoo so he can edit it for a couple of minutes and then restore when he feels it's ready. Don't mind it being restored if an editor in good standing takes responsibility for it.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

97 seconds work with my machete. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The old version of the article was WP:ADMASQ but not to a horrible degree so it should've been cleaned up instead of G11ed, saving time. Nonetheless, the article is fine now, and the subject is most likely notable (h = 40) so no concerns. Esquivalience ^t 21:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. WP:CSD#G11 says:
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
The deleted revision did not require a fundamental rewrite as demonstrated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup here.
Cunard (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.