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. Consensus is that this page will not be useful to the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Streetseekers/Blackwater Primero[edit]

Userspace draft from January 2011 from a non-notable rapper. There's a clear COI here as the username is the name of the magazine that the rapper is (was?) doing PR work for. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also had first encountered this article and there are simply no signs of any actual solid notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 22:51, March 30, 2016‎
Keep. COI is not a basis for deletion. WP:N does not apply to drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.120.241 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank per below. Alternatively, Weak Keep per WP:UPYES point #3, unless consensus can be formed that it meets WP:CSD#G11 or anther of the criteria within WP:GCSD or WP:CSD#User pages. If the user indeed has a coi, they may choose to submit the article through AFC, and make further edits through edit requests. We should assume good faith; the content they're drafting may currently be inappropriate, but that can change. It is in an appropriate namespace for a work in progress to reside until it is suitable for the mainspace. Until consensus is formed on how long userspace drafts should be retained, these are generally de facto kept.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aponiatowski11/Regis Historical Society and many others show that your personal default is not the standard here. Vote keep if you want but voting keep because you believe there's some consensus to do so is far from the current reality. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: De facto kept in the sense that the majority are not nominated at WP:MfD or speedily deleted. If there were a consensus on how long they can remain untouched, or if they could be deleted when they fail certain standards, less would exist. I have no "personal default". I assert the policies and guidelines. WP:UPYES point #3 says these pages are allowed, even unfit content can be userfied, and the deletion policy gives no justification to delete them. Hence they should be kept until the community decides what should be done with them. WP:N doesn't apply to the user namespace (WP:WHYN), and I've addressed why the possible conflict of interest doesn't matter in user namespace drafts above, therefore the reasons in your nomination are not applicable policies and guidelines wise.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, argue whatever you want. WP:UP is protected because of editor warring by people making up new policies to oppose these regardless of what happens at MFD and you aren't joining in the discussions to create these standards at WT:UP so feel free to argue that all of MFD should be stopped while you purposely refuse to engage in any serious discussion about the matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I opposed shutting down MfD, here. I'll follow whatever the community decides on the matter, but that doesn't mean I necessarily feel one way or another about it, or have to take a side at WT:UP. The page in question here is one of a group that has specifically been involved in recent controversy, as you well know, and I think we should hold off on deleting it until the community has its say about userspace drafts.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to a weak keep above, as my rationale is based on the circumstances, and Johnuniq makes a reasonable point below.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding blank per Oiyarbepsy below.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see why this is contentious. Legacypac moved the page to mainspace, where it was promptly prodded, and Godsy moved it back. Legacypac either did it in bad faith, seeking deletion of userspace by trickery, or he is inept at judging what is ok in mainspace. Either way, disruption.

The page is reasonably presented as a draft of an article, but it has a promotional aspect with no independent sourcing. It should be at least blanked during periods of inactivity. If someone makes the effort and determines that the topic is definitely not notable, then it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That history has no affect on the actual discussion here. Editor has been inactive since 2011. Are you suggesting blanking it because five years should be considered "a period of inactivity"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history has a huge effect on the participants involved in the history. This is a proxy battle.

I'm suggesting, as I long have done, that possibly promotional material should be blanked during periods of inactivity. This page is definitely possibly promotional.

Yes, five years is "a period of inactivity". Have you ever worked with people in a volunteer organisation before? People do sometimes leave,even for decades, and return again. This Wikipedia volunteer activity attracted an awful lot of young people ten years ago, people who now my be busy with work of family life. It is very reasonable, tending certain, that many of these will return. Returning old times definitely add to the life of an organisation. Your apparent short term immediatism and deletionism is damaging to the reception for old timers on their return.

I think this page should not be deleted until someone who cares does a serious source search and reports that this topic has no chance of ever being suitable for inclusion in mainspace. I do not agree that you have the right or authority to force a deadline on this. It can be blanked until someone does the research. Until this, balancing possible promotion against trusting the old volunteer, blanking is most appropriate. ((Inactive userpage blanked)). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are some facts: (A) the record label he was under in 2014 have a dead link now; (B) there is literally no mention of him at the magazine link; (C) the facebook page for Blackwater productions (seems they stopped paying for their website) lists Primero as the first creator and hasn't been edited since 2013; and finally (D) a simple search for "Blackwater Primero" shows only this userspace (NOINDEX is such helping there) and literally nothing out in existence about his alleged "eruption in the urban music industry." Is this really a volunteer for the encyclopedia or some promotional nonsense that just managed to skate by because no one paid attention to the fact that he put it in userspace rather than anywhere else? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see that that is persuasive, convincing, while the original nomination rationale was not? COI, for example, is an issue, but not a deletion rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given [1] this move of the page out of mainspace by Godsy, his keep vote is at best an April Fools joke. If he wanted to keep the page, he should have improved it, not effectively deleted it by relegating it to long abandoned userspace. Legacypac (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ but blank with ((Inactive userpage blanked)). Not U5-able because it is a serious draft. There is an open question as to whether this is a notable topic, but there are mild promotion concerns in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ricky's analysis that shows the subject has not evidence of notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Calling the page a draft, or speculating that the subject may satisfy WP:GNG once another five years has passed, cannot disguise the fact that the purpose of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia, and pages like this promote the idea that free hosting is available so people can link to wikipedia.org/MYPAGE! Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnuniq and Ricky81682. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as still questionable and none of this suggests a convincingly better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank The burden of proof should belong to those wanting deletion, and they frankly haven't met it here. Blanking the page solves every single possible issue with this page, so deletion isn't necessary, and deletion shouldn't happen. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional draft that would have to be WP:TNT'd if the subject ever became notable. It seems incredibly unlikely he ever will, though. WP:NOTWEBHOST of this subject's advertisement. ~ Rob^Talk 21:57, 5 April 2016 (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.