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 . Although if an editor in good standing wants a copy so they can take responsibility and mainspace it, I'm willing to do that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Black Scar Blues[edit]

Draft:Black Scar Blues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the actors who wrote directed and edited this film has been trying to get this page approved since Sept 2017. It's been declined 6 times so far. It may never go G13 with this persistence. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well spotted, there is an important issue here. I (everyone?) missed that. There is a possible lack of editorial independence here beyond being an actor in the movie. Of course in some cases we allow editors not to be independent but the matter needs to be discussed bearing this in mind. Thincat (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t miss it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I don't know how we handle this type of thing. In this case one discussion has been better than a long line of reviewers. Thincat (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked about any connection here. My question may well be naïve but I hope it isn't improper. Thincat (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know that we have a standard for handling this sort of thing, in fact I think we don’t. Individuals sometimes assert otherwise, but every well-participated discussion I see ends up concluding that COI is not per se a reason for deletion. Indeed, even UPE is not a reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think COI will always be a grey area. For me, UPE is contrary to the terms of use and TOU-violating edits should (normally) be deleted. If the editor is not the film "owner" then there is misrepresentation, a TOU violation. If he is then I'm not sure if ownership constitutes receiving compensation (I think it should do) but I think extreme similarity of username (absent a disclaimer) might well count as disclosure (though it fails the strict WMF TOU requirements). I'll be OK with (and will learn from) whatever result here. In my view also the topic has demonstrated notability. Thincat (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ask about a connection. The creator's account name is the same as one of the two lead actors. The connection is obvious and noted in my nomination statement. If he is also an owner in the production company as suggested above, that is another connection. Legacypac (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that but the user might deny any connection and might give a credible explanation. My username, Thincat, is (almost) the same as a business with an article on WP, Thincats so if someone was suspicious of my editing it would be nice if they asked if I was connected. In fact I have a denial on my userpage so they don't need to. BTW my username was created in 2004 and the firm in 2011 so my denial is credible. Thincat (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS It'd be wise not to create an article on American Legacy PAC. Thincat (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since that pac was formed years after my username and I've never edited an article on them there is no issue. In this case the lead says " written, edited, and directed by Leroy Nguyen." Plus he is one of the lead actors and the user name is the same. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe is correct, though sometimes other deficiencies lead to deletion, and no consensus that I'm aware of has made it so.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have repeatedly tried to delete drafts and articles due to COI, and I wind up losing those arguments. I think that we are still operating with some unstated assumptions from 2005 that expansion of the encyclopedia is one of our objectives. I think that improvement of the quality of the encyclopedia is even more important, but we often think that expansion is good, and therefore lack of notability should be the only reason to delete. (Yes, I know that there are 14 deletion reasons. I know.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[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.


More