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. I count four votes to delete, one to blank, and two to keep so consensus is for deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thomegaentertainment[edit]

Promotional (company sounding) username who's only edit was to copy an article to their userpage Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It certainly does look like an article was dumped into the user page but I can find no trace of such an article, nor any evidence of its deletion. As a draft this certainly seems to be a conflict of interest as the name of the user account corresponds to a production company of which the subject is an owner. The featured articles mentioned in the draft include a couple of major newspapers with no specifics. I found this Star-Phoenix article which is just a photo. I did not find anything in the Globe and Mail. I did also find this Global news article which is a passing mention. This draft is stale and without evidence that would be viable for article space. --Whpq (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and replace with Template:Userpage_blanked (only because of promotional concerns, otherwise it would be keep). This is not the forum to discuss the appropriateness of usernames - see WP:UAA. Whpq's arguments about whether this draft passes notability guidelines or not are irrelevant - drafts are not deleted for failing notability requirements. It would have been better to just blank and template the page instead of taking up MfD and admin time here. A2soup (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to subpage and black with ((Inactive userpage blanked)). Yes, promotional without independent sources, but not offensively and hopelessly. Fair draft, not cruft. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not meeting GNG is absolutely a valid reason to delete. It looks like they decided to create a promotional userpage -Fake article - to build legitimacy for their business. User pages like this get indexed and are almost as good as an article for promotion/SEO. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence, not true. Userspace is not mainspace. Second sentence, that's the crux. It may to you, but I disagree it is blatant, it looks to me like a good faith attempt to write an acceptable article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can find any evidence of an article that the nominator alleges this is copied from. Unhappy about the slack nomination.

Searching for information, the only thing coming up seems to be from dating sites. The user has no productive edits in their history. It is starting to feel like SPA promotion, which is U5-able. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on re-reading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FAKEARTICLE. Not in draft space, where subpar article drafts are permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) What distinguishes a "subpar" draft from an acceptable draft? If a draft is acceptable, shouldn't it be immediately moved to mainspace? My point is that drafts are essentially subpar by definition, so using a draft's subpar-ness as a reason for anything can only be misleading. 2) Are you really saying that, despite the traditional privacy/personal ownership of userspace, userspace drafts are actually more open to deletion than draftspace drafts? When was that consensus established? A2soup (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unhappy about the "slack nomination" and say it was not copied all day long but your inability to find the source does not mean it is not obviously a cut and paste job from somewhere, posted in with a single edit, not developed over a series of edits. It says it's from Wikipedia in the first line and includes nav info and other page elements that come from copying an article without opening the edit window. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Slack nomination with no reason for deletion provided. 166.171.123.181 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. A "company sounding" username and low edit count are simply not reasons for deleting a userspace subarticle. There is no evidence that this is copied from elsewhere.Fagles (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE, considering that the original wasn't actually a draft (the draft template was added later by a passing admin). ansh 666 04:47, 3 March 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.