Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valkyriesrugby

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 draftified to Draft:Minnesota Valkyries Women's Rugby Club. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valkyriesrugby

WP:FAKEARTICLE using userspace named for the topic. No sources. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom - non notable rugby team, Nothing worth saving. –Davey2010^Talk 00:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space - A2soup has just self-nominated themselves to expand and improve the little article so as they're going to give up their time in expanding it there's not much reason to delete at the moment, –Davey2010^Talk 11:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ya know, it's sometimes nice to google something before you declare it non-notable (not that notability applies in userspace anyways, but that's another can of worms). Here are three independent sources about the Minnesota Valkyries rugby team, and here is a source that describes them as "one of the top female rugby teams in the country". I don't know whether I'm more surprised that the Minnesota Valkyries don't have a mainspace article yet or that a non-problematic, good-faith draft on them ended up at MfD. A2soup (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a WP:FAKEARTICLE in userspace, so notability does not matter. If sent to mainspace Godsy would revert and slam me at ANi etc. If you want to go build out an article on the topic A2soup go do it. This page has pretty much nothing worth keeping though. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Still a WP:FAKEARTICLE" + has {{Userspace draft}} at the top = ???

"has pretty much nothing worth keeping" + "was founded in 1984 and was originally a part of the University of Minnesota Women's Rugby Club until the club's split in 1990" = ???

There are options for good-faith non-problematic userspace drafts besides sending them to mainspace and deleting them. Leaving them alone works. It doesn't deserve deletion just because no one is willing to work it up for mainspace in the next seven days. A2soup (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per the sound reasoning given by A2soup. There is no harm in retaining it.~~—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What good is it retaining something that's not been edited in the last 5 years and isn't going to ever make it to articlespace? .... –Davey2010^Talk 04:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: A2soup's comments above cover that, but I've changed my mind for another reason. I looked at the content of the page and the discussion here before, but I didn't pay much attention to the username.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ per WP:CSD#G11.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you finally clued in (maybe you want to go clean up your criticisms of stuff I miss?) - Looks like an article about the rugby club but is actually a userpage about the rugby club - type of Fake Article. It is a prohibited username too but since they have no edited in 5 years and once this page is gone there will be nothing with that name, I've not bothered to report that. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy: What? I've removed your G11 tag. With an independent source or two (I linked four above), this would be a valid stub - it certainly doesn't need to be "fundamentally rewritten" to not be promotional. What part did you find at all promotional? I just don't understand. A2soup (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@A2soup: {{Db-spamuser}}: "a userpage being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted. The use of one's userpage for advertising or publicity is considered spam and is not a legitimate use of one's userspace. Furthermore, promotional usernames are forbidden by the username policy and are blocked as spam." I think it reasonably meets those conditions. There are no references present, only an external link, and that is the only edit the user whose space in which this resides has ever made.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a very short and plain description of an unquestionably notable rugby team and its founding that has {{Userspace draft}} at the top "promotion" is probably the greatest lack of good faith I've ever seen here. Do you disagree that this would make a valid stub if it had references? As for the username, this is the wrong forum - take it to WP:UAA if you're concerned. (But consider: would you find User:RedSox editing Boston Red Sox to be problematic if their edits showed no clear bias or promotion?) I get your thought process, but you went waaay down the wrong path. A2soup (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @A2soup: Taking your point that this could easily be converted into a stub (though I didn't personally look into the sourcing much) and is neutral, how about moving this to the draft namespace, and I'd even concede to leaving a redirect here (though in this case given the potentially promotional username, I think deleting it would be reasonable, though your point on that subject isn't unreasonable as well). UAA wouldn't take any action on the account because of guideline number 7 (i.e. "Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2-3 weeks. Older accounts are likely abandoned and reports of such users will be summarily declined.").—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually leery of userspace --> draftspace moves because draftspace is easier to delete than userspace (it actually does create clutter unlike userspace, and also isn't used for private notes), and if the deletion occurs, the user is just as (possibly) bitten as if you had deleted their userspace. In this case, however, I've pretty much decided to put it in mainspace soon anyways, so do whatever you want besides deleting it. Thanks for offering a compromise. A2soup (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft namespace per above discussion.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment user now Indef blocked for username violation. Guess they will block. [1] Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 12 May 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.