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: keep . No consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:RiceGum[edit]

Draft:RiceGum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Source 1 - says nothing of what is claimed, merely reproducing one of the subject's tweets;
• Source 2 - gives nothing;
• Source 3 - a mention, mainly focussed on Alissa Violet;
• Source 4 - gives nothing;
• Source 5 - gives his placings on Billboard;
• Source 6 - is unreliable as it's YouTube;
• Source 7 - gives nothing;
• Source 8 - gives his placings on Billboard;
• Source 9 - an iTunes product placement;
• Source 10 - an iTunes product placement;
• Source 11 - gives nothing.

The tone, content and intention is promotional; the sources don't represent the significant coverage required to establish Notability. It has previously been deleted 7 times and this is the fifth decline in its current incarnation. Its single-purpose IP creator almost certainly has an undeclared Conflict of interest. It's just an enormous time-sink. If other editors think it's worth keeping, can they raise it to a standard where it can be accepted. If they can't, don't stand in the way of its deletion. Tagging again. KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete beyond enough. Deleted 7 times in 3 years from main space for A7, G11 etc. He can edit directly in mainspace so we can nuke on sight. No need for this draft. Pass the SALT please. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac changed !vote below to promote to mainspace, so striking this to avoid confusion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not offensive enough of "promotion" to justify deletion as a draft.

"It has previously been deleted 7 times"? Please provide evidence of this.

You have only to look on the Decline template which will tell you exactly that. I'm not in the business of making such statements up. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing anything about deletions. The onus is on the nominator to present the evidence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Five declines? That should be attributed to the decline notice statement "You are encouraged to make improvements" and then proceeding through mind numbing minutiae of some options before coming to a big blue "Submit" button. The solution is to fix these templates, or simply to not use them. Smacking drafts with MfD nominations does nothing useful. MfD-ing these drafts is not addressing the source of the proment one iota. Coming to MfD just adds to the time sink. The authors do not come here to read this. Forcing source-analysis discussions into MfD is flagrant disregard of WP:NMFD and is disruption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, your dislike of Afc really does force you into odd positions. Do you really believe that a misunderstanding of the Decline template is what has led to resubmission, rather than the author's determination to have their promotional article on here? As for disruption, it's a clearly problematic draft that needs a decision. Hence my bringing it here. KJP1 (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the first fault lies with the AfC process, the invitations to submit and resubmit, the hopeless templated messages, the big blue button. And even if there is a huge behavioural problem on their part, deletion is not the answer. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, you appear to be under the impression that these draft-header-template comments are human readable. Or normally read by non-AfCers. They are not, they are not easily read. I tried harder and found "It has previously been deleted 7 times ... KJP1 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)" which is quite unhelpful. The log linked by your nomination shows no deletions. I found the log behind a mainspac redirect not so far mentioned,[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=RiceGum. There I see a number of mainspace speedies with reasons that clearly don't apply this time. Sloppy nomination, you are not taking MfD seriously. Incomplete misleading nomination and a bunch of stuff that are not reasons for deletion. "Declined 6 times" means the method of declining is not working. Duplicated means "speedy redirect". Time to end the time sink by creating a new time sink at a different forum? These confused inept wishful SPA contributers again and again and again do not get the message and keep pressing the big blue button with every attempt, MfD is not going to address the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Argh. I'm going to strike through all of the above and change my !vote to Neutral - The arguments in favor of keeping in draft are almost persuasive.

Neutral Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason, I'm really not surprised. In the interests of impartial research, I watched one. Does he actually have two drafts at Afc [1]? KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of this discussion is keep/move to mainspace, I would say to merge the image and redirect that draft to the new mainspace location. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I asked for this to be restored to draftspace when RiceGum charted on the Billboard Hot 100, and I also worked on it a bit by adding a source or a sentence here or there. I have not been one of the users re-nominating it for acceptance into mainspace because I did not/do not believe it is ready, but I don't wish for it to be deleted because it could be worked on further by a user who has better understanding of where to find reliable sources for YouTubers who have had crossover chart success. Also, I did not ask for this to be restored or do what I did on the article to "promote" RiceGum; I don't like him, so let's not try to paint everybody who worked on the article as intending to promote him. Mere mentions of his chart placements are not promotional in nature. Also, the iTunes links are not there as "product placement"—they are allowed to verify that songs were released as commercial singles: per WP:RS, "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of [...] an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". That's the reason I added them. I couldn't care less whether people buy RiceGum's music or not. Ss112 18:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that the billboard.com/biz sources that you have claimed "show nothing" did in fact show something when I added them; Billboard has changed how it archives its data. I have fixed the URLs now. Also, you have claimed YouTube is not reliable as a source for the amount of views a video has. I believe a primary source would be allowable for this purpose alone. Regardless, I think RiceGum is notable, but I don't think I'm the one to make the article better—and I'm quite sure in previous deletion discussions, users who vote "keep" don't have a responsibility to work on said draft or article, or at least be the one to get it to the point where it is acceptable to all. I think we should just disallow users from continuing to nominate it until such a time. Ss112 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "claim" they showed nothing. As you know, they did show nothing when I checked them. KJP1 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? That's still a claim—as I'm sure you know, to claim is to "assert that something is true". That's what you did. It doesn't mean you weren't correct. Ss112 02:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This dude is notable. Having a song charted on a national music chart passes the WP:MBIO criteria and there are a few of his songs that have charted in the US (Billboard Hot 100 and/or other component charts). If repeated re-submission is the issue then it should be prevented until interested experienced editors improve the draft until it's ready for mainspace. KingAndGod 19:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And do we have any way to persuade the author not to keep resubmitting until it's ready - to avoid a repeat of the 7 Deletes, 5 Declines and the above discussion we've all spent time on.....? KJP1 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the stupid templates from the draft header, including the big blue submit button. State the problem in clear and simple terms on the draft talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - Removing the stupid encouragement might reduce the number of Declines to less than 7, but would have nothing to do with the 7 Deletes. What we have here is an editor who won't take Declines and Deletes as answers. You have raised a valid question (without raising it) as to whether a block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes. Where I say "behavioural issue", that means I believe the appropriate response is not MfD but taking escalating steps: (1) Talk to the user, on a talk page; (2) warn the user ; (3) block the user.

I noted the several A7 and G11 deletions in mainspace. I note that the rationales do not apply to the current draft. I do not know that the same author is involved for all, and even if the same author, the non-applicability of past rationales speaks to the possibility that the author has been learning. Yes Robert, I know AGF is being stretched towards breaking here, but AGF must be followed in the steps preceding sanctions. Also, even blocking is not the solution to the root problem, which I suggest may be that AfC overly-warmly invites promoters to write bad articles and submit, without sufficiently emphasising the need for quality sources. Stretch AGF when composing messages to a disruptive editor, but use less AGF in the first decline of a bad draft. Another root problem is that newcomers are not being recommended to get editing experience prior to attempting a new page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When you use the AFCH tool it pops up any deletions of the title in mainspace. That is where the 7 times deleted comes from. I don't know how to link to that info but if you have AFCH you can easily see it. WL:SmokeyJoe are you signed up for AfC? Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So draft nominations at MfD are submitted on the assumption that MfD reviewers have AFCH tools at hand? This is yet more reason why drafts (not failing WP:NOT) should be banned from MfD and sent to a similarly structure WP:Drafts for discussion forum for AfCers to review. It can't be that hard to set up, but util then, just do it in sections at WT:AfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If this guy is really notable we can mainspace it as a result of this discussion. We would have to suspent WP:NMFD for this debate though. Maybe this Draft:Ricegum should be merged in. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any experienced Wikipedian in good standing can mainspace the draft. If this were AfD, I would be tending to !vote "keep". WP:NMFD had strong consensus, unanimous except for you, and is founded on multiple good reasons for MfD not being properly suited to the many non-deletion discussions needed for problem drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely fine. If it survives here, as it probably will, lets push it on and see how it fares. One other quick thought. I think this debate, of almost article length, hasn't been helped by becoming overly confrontational. My apologies for my part in that. Moving forward, I'll remember the words of the 197th member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad. So we want to respond in a helpful and loving way". KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 😀. I know, real life, that AfC makes people sad. Not the majority, not the spammers promoters UPE-ers, but the wide-eyed inept newcomers who make the mistake of following the instructions at face value. As an experienced adult educator, I am so frustrated with the glaring faults of the AfC system and my inability to do anything about it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and promote to mainspace. Oddly enough for a YouTube personality (most aren't notable), this satisfies WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2 per this Billboard chart history and this one. They have had 2 singles chart on 2 different charts. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Mainspace and fire up an AFD - Literally as the bold shizz says move & AFD it - This whole discussion is focusing around the notability and not the content as such so as such it's better off at AFD .... As someone who hates going from pillar to post I'd prefer the discussion to remain here however it's more sensible to move so that way the notability can be discussed at great length. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion proves that users at MfD are perfectly capable of discussing notability - I'm convinced he meets WP:NMUSIC and normal editing can fix the rest. I'm changing to Promote to Mainspace Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I simply thought AFD would've been a better venue however everyone disagrees, Due to the constant declines I still maintain it should be deleted however I'm apparently a minority on that too. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible draft. Any confirmed user can move to mainspace at any time, so it need not be proposed or discussed here, where the question is not relevant. Nor is the number of previous AfC declines. However, if the same user moves to mainspace and then nominates at AfC AfD, that would be a form of gaming the system, and I believe has been viewed as inappropriate in the past. No policy-based reason for deletion has been stated. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Don't you mean "AfD"? I would correct it, but don't want to change what you wrote as then it wouldn't be what you wrote. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TheSandDoctor for catching my error. I have corrected it above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given he's charted, meeting NMUSIC. If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with KJP1. Also- when did MFD start getting so political? Certainly wasn't like this a month or so ago. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There are certain users who are intent on "cleaning up" draft space. They take a fairly strong and inclusive view of what should be deleted via MfD. I, and some other users, sometimes notice these MfDs and express a contrary opinion. Then the discussions sometimes get a bit heated, but this one has been longer and involved more chang4es of view than most I can recall. late last year and earlier this year i was on a wiki break, and did not comment at MfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No need to delete, has plenty of potential to be article. Because of NMUSIC this should pass AfD but I don't think MfD should be as strict as AfD anyway. Allow it to evolve in draft space I say, or ensure it is well enough cited and promote to main space. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:30, 7 April 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.