Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Akira1111/New article name here

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akira1111/New article name here

Youtube filmmaker. No references. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:STALEDRAFT. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? See WP:COMMONSENSE Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:U5 via WP:STALEDRAFT point #4 (i.e. "If the material is promotional, or otherwise unsuitable, and the author was never a serious Wikipedia contributor, consider tagging for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#U5").—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was added by our friend, Ricky. :) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken due to policy manipulation.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hopelessly promotional. Probably should be treated as an editing test given the default draft title. No reasonable hope of becoming an article. As such, violates WP:NOT. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines do not apply to userspace drafts. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is borderline for a speedy as per WP:G11. Obviously promotional and obviously of zero encyclopedic value. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. ~ Rob^Talk 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article to which you can apply CSD#G11, it does not read as an advertisement. It has an encyclopedic value, you're missing the point. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: You're misunderstanding WP:G11. It's a general criteria that can apply to, quoting from the policy, "all pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." This is unambiguously a "page". The G stands for general, as opposed to the "A" set of criteria that can only be applied to articles. It's a bit amusing that the "X cannot be applied to userspace drafts" argument is now being extended even to the CSD general criteria. Calling a film "one of the best fan films ever made" with "a globally positive reception" and claiming it was the reason for a reboot of the franchise is clear advertising, especially when you match is up against reality where the video on youtube has only 17,000 views and no references have backed up any of these extraordinary claims. Although, you have made me look at this article enough to realize that this is a blatant hoax, and I'll be tagging it as such. ~ Rob^Talk 04:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

They are so worried about stopping any cleanup of userspace they are willing to misrepresent policy, change policy and then fully protect the page - all to protect spam and hoaxes by long gone accounts from deletion. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not have any promotional content, how can you you apply G11 to it? Did you misread what I said because of the furthermore (fixed now)? Using "peacock" terms does not mean it's promotional, it's a bit of puffery that can be removed. I don't know what you mean by modifying policy since you're the one who did it twice whereas I only restored status quo and got it protected to prevent you and others changing it as you like it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 04:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You, not me, wiped out over a year of policy improvements and got your preferred version protected. You have no WP:CLUE Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can call individual versions of policies, improvements. Call my version preferred, it was just a time when you all weren't modifying it like your own. There's a reason it was protected. And I think I have enough CLUE to understand what your agenda is. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I think my opinion on which side is correct is clear, both sides are acting somewhat childishly. In this case, the article meets G11 because it's obviously promotional. The only way to remove the promotional language would be to essentially start over because it makes up the entirety of the article. That's what G11 is made for. Not to mention G3 as per blatant hoax given how insane some of the claims are. On the other hand, having random pages floating around the userspace honestly isn't the end of the world, and it's silly to get in an argument that will end up at ANI over that. Getting in territorial fights like angry mastodons won't accomplish much. ~ Rob^Talk 05:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already at ANI and again, I don't see how you can equate peacock terms to G11 and vandalism, you clearly have no idea how CSD criteria work. There is no vandalism and there is no advertising. (Edit: Dab page) --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blatant hoax falls under WP:G3 and these claims go well beyond peacock terms. I'll grab an uninvolved admin outside of the tag system since you appear inclined to edit war. ~ Rob^Talk 05:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant hoax, ffs, go do a Google search. Any admin you grab is automatically involved. I removed your speedy deletion tag once, how do you see that as an inclination to edit war? I've been here long enough to know the in and outs of the rules of Wikipedia, do you really think I'm new or I get intimidated? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never tried to intimidate you? Why would I? I have no interest in pettiness. And my grabbing an admin involves placing an {{Admin help}} template on the talk page, since that will get an uninvolved admin's eyes on the issue and cannot be removed by other editors (as per the guidelines on refactoring other editors' talk page comments). With all due respect, I question the knowledge that any editor has about the CSD after they tell me that non-articles cannot be subject to G11. A blatant hoax doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. If I said "bananas give you the power to fly", that would be a blatant hoax even though bananas exist. Similarly, this page argues that a relatively unknown short film was the basis for a major franchise reboot a year later. That is quite simply insane. ~ Rob^Talk 05:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed something, I said it doesn't qualify for G11 because it quite simply isn't an advertisement. Also, it has fan-made speculation, speculation is simply OR and not hoax or vandalism. You're on the wrong side of the court here. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment sums up everything that's currently wrong with MfD on both sides of the aisle. This isn't a court, for Christ's sake; it's an encyclopedia. And there shouldn't even be an aisle! ~ Rob^Talk 06:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Court, as in, a tennis court, where there's 2 sides. And you are on the side, where you shouldn't be. Really, dude? --QEDK (T 📖 C) 06:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a slightly briefer version of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Reynolds (film producer) and so falls under WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host... deleted content." JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Figures. We really need a means of finding these more easily. This is happening a lot recently, where a previous AfD happens to exist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTAWEBHOST, WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:FAKEARTICLE etc. BMK (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: per the discussion at WT:UP, xeno's change will make it that these pages are harmless and deletion is improper. You should change your vote to reflect policy.

Delete: spam. BethNaught (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stale draft about non-notable subject; probable spam. Miniapolis 23:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most famous fan films ever made can be sourced and WP:V and WP:GNG don't apply to drafts so that is all irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.119 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A draft that cannot satisfy Notability and Verifiability is by definition not a legitimate draft, so WP:NOTAWEBHOST applies. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The continued effort in getting this crap saved is probably one of the most bizarre things I've seen ......, There's no need to keep an article that A) has no name (literally!), B) doesn't contain one Reliable source and C) that's been abandoned for the past 6 years, IMHO that certain editor should focus their efforts on actually improving the encycloepdia. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 3 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.