- 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: WP:SNOW keep, noting that the editor who nominated the draft for deletion has been indef blocked for spam. BD2412 T 02:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet the eligibility criteria. JonathanX0X0 ( talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep per no, or very weak, nomination criteria. I would note, too, the nom, or another editor, speedied this in tandem with MfD. The speedy deletion has been challenged by at least two editors, including myself, as it's not unambiguously promotional. It's, appropriately, in Draft: space, which is the preferred place AfC drafts, as I understand it. Sourcing is, granted, very weak and I'm not seeing any vaguely qualifying reliable, independent sources. However, as a professor, he likely meets our SNG(s); the question is whether WP:GNG is met. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to Draft: namespace. As such, I see no reason for deletion. Wait six months for WP:CSD#G13 to kick in, then speedy delete it. Let's give the author a chance to improve it; proposing for deletion, within a couple days, seems BITEy to me. -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now Not a candidate for becoming an article as written, but not so obviously impossible to warrant immediate deletion. If this needs to rot in Draft space for 6 months, then so be it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 16:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D, well said! Particularly liked your last sentence. -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|
(Sidebar: I assume we can still ping IP editors by using their IPv4/IPv6 IP address?) -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|
- Delete. Looks promotional to me. Deb ( talk) 16:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Includes some promotion, but also some apparently factual content, and editing might well result in a valid article. If claims are supported by sources, this person is probably notable. I do have to wonder how reliable some of the sources are, and some clearly should be removed, such as the Amazon citation. Many podcasts are not reliable, but some are. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Drafts are not required to meet notability guidelines. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Not hopelessly promotional, and could become a serviceable article with some rewriting if the subject is notable. If he's not, the draft will most likely be abandoned, after which it can be deleted via G13 (already linked above). Glades12 ( talk) 21:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I checked the article and I agree with most of the editors here - the draft, given a chance to be re-written properly with the proper links for citations, may result in a fairly valid article. Also I want to comment on unusual activity of the JonathanX0X0 - I noticed on his page that he was accused of being a paid editor and most of his contributions confirm it. Therefore, I have a legitimate question, why would a paid editor nominate the draft (that may stay on Wikipedia for 6 months) for deletion? This looks very unusual and I would double check the user's credibility and his ability to contribute Wikipedia in a positive way. -- 199.79.46.44 ( talk) 23:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "very unusual," and, secondarily, can IP editors bring editors to
WP:ANI for
WP:COI?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
23:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Dmehus: There is no policy or guideline preventing a report by any editor registered or not from filing a report on any other editor on ANI. I have myself with reluctance filed ANI reports on users. The fact that anyone can file a report on anyone else is not seen as a negative because if it weren't for WP:BOOMERANGs, there would be a lot of problem editors that got missed. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 23:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "very unusual," and, secondarily, can IP editors bring editors to
WP:ANI for
WP:COI?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
23:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Trying to smear a good faith user by implying that they are COI / paid editors is not cool without rationales. Michepman ( talk) 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman Your !vote contradicts your rationale. There was absolutely no attempt to "smear," the creator of this draft as having a COI or paid editing conflict. Neither those that responded, nor the nom, did any such the thing. The above exchange with the IP editor is just in reference to the IP editor's examinations of the nom's contributions, but they made no such allegations. Hope that clarifies.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus - Maybe I am reading that comment wrong, but the commenter a few rows above mine appears to claim that the nominator is a paid editor and makes a jibe at their 'credibility' and their 'ability to contribute [positively]'. I don't think that's something that we should be doing at
WP:AFD. It's mean-spirited and out of place unless the argument is that the nominator is breaking the rules by nominating or that their actions are out of process. (And if that is the claim, it should be sourced properly so that others can understand). If that's not what is happening here, then I apologize, but that's how I see it and I don't yet see another explanation for why those remarks are made.
Michepman (
talk)
15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman I agree that it was unnecessary to be included here, but I don't think it was necessarily mean-spirited if they've done their research into the nom's contributions. I haven't looked too deeply enough to know definitively. Nevertheless, I would've preferred the IP editor take the nom to a conduct forum, such as
ANI, which they (or another IP editor) has now done. (I noted, though, they neglected to notify the nom on his talkpage, so it'll probably be archived or closed without action.)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus, fun fact to add in this conversation that I'm about to block the creator of this article as a likely paid editor who has not disclosed their employer.
Drmies (
talk)
00:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, thanks for the follow-up. I hadn't look into the nominator as in-depth as the IP editor(s) above and Prax, but from following the various talkpages, I didn't find it odd that, when queried, the editor chose simply not to respond when warned and advised not to edit until they had responded to the charges of paid editing/COI. I was just trying to assume good faith in this conversation and keep it to the subject of this MfD, but there were some odd edits in the nom's contributions, to be sure. Doug Mehus T· C 00:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Drmies, let me correct you.
JonathanX0X0 is not a creator of the article (it also seems illogical that the creator would nominate his own draft for deletion instead of deleting it) - the recently blocked user is a person who nominated the draft for deletion for whatever reason.
2601:1C0:CB01:2660:F866:89C6:DA79:BD28 (
talk)
00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ha, that's funny. Sorry for the confusion. At least I blocked the right person--so this was one of those cases where you had a spamming editor working up their credentials by nominating other spammy articles... It takes one to know one.
Drmies (
talk)
00:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Drmies Yeah, no kidding. No worries. It could be that, or I was initially wondering, before I looked who created the article at least, if the editor had potentially created this article, then nominated it, knowing our policies for Draft: space in order to justify a "keep"
consensus for his or her article. It probably sounds a bit off the wall, but I suspect even that is something you've encountered once or twice?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
00:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dmehus, that is not an unlikely scenario, and I've wondered a bit about related matters--like, Draft space being sort of a safe zone. I think someone up here said "can't delete drafts", and I think that's problematic, but I also have to tell you that (as an old-timer) I don't have that much experience with draft space. If I run into it, it's by accident. Drmies ( talk) 18:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Drmies Yeah, no kidding. No worries. It could be that, or I was initially wondering, before I looked who created the article at least, if the editor had potentially created this article, then nominated it, knowing our policies for Draft: space in order to justify a "keep"
consensus for his or her article. It probably sounds a bit off the wall, but I suspect even that is something you've encountered once or twice?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
00:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ha, that's funny. Sorry for the confusion. At least I blocked the right person--so this was one of those cases where you had a spamming editor working up their credentials by nominating other spammy articles... It takes one to know one.
Drmies (
talk)
00:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus, fun fact to add in this conversation that I'm about to block the creator of this article as a likely paid editor who has not disclosed their employer.
Drmies (
talk)
00:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman I agree that it was unnecessary to be included here, but I don't think it was necessarily mean-spirited if they've done their research into the nom's contributions. I haven't looked too deeply enough to know definitively. Nevertheless, I would've preferred the IP editor take the nom to a conduct forum, such as
ANI, which they (or another IP editor) has now done. (I noted, though, they neglected to notify the nom on his talkpage, so it'll probably be archived or closed without action.)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus - Maybe I am reading that comment wrong, but the commenter a few rows above mine appears to claim that the nominator is a paid editor and makes a jibe at their 'credibility' and their 'ability to contribute [positively]'. I don't think that's something that we should be doing at
WP:AFD. It's mean-spirited and out of place unless the argument is that the nominator is breaking the rules by nominating or that their actions are out of process. (And if that is the claim, it should be sourced properly so that others can understand). If that's not what is happening here, then I apologize, but that's how I see it and I don't yet see another explanation for why those remarks are made.
Michepman (
talk)
15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman Your !vote contradicts your rationale. There was absolutely no attempt to "smear," the creator of this draft as having a COI or paid editing conflict. Neither those that responded, nor the nom, did any such the thing. The above exchange with the IP editor is just in reference to the IP editor's examinations of the nom's contributions, but they made no such allegations. Hope that clarifies.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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: WP:SNOW keep, noting that the editor who nominated the draft for deletion has been indef blocked for spam. BD2412 T 02:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Does not meet the eligibility criteria. JonathanX0X0 ( talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep per no, or very weak, nomination criteria. I would note, too, the nom, or another editor, speedied this in tandem with MfD. The speedy deletion has been challenged by at least two editors, including myself, as it's not unambiguously promotional. It's, appropriately, in Draft: space, which is the preferred place AfC drafts, as I understand it. Sourcing is, granted, very weak and I'm not seeing any vaguely qualifying reliable, independent sources. However, as a professor, he likely meets our SNG(s); the question is whether WP:GNG is met. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to Draft: namespace. As such, I see no reason for deletion. Wait six months for WP:CSD#G13 to kick in, then speedy delete it. Let's give the author a chance to improve it; proposing for deletion, within a couple days, seems BITEy to me. -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for now Not a candidate for becoming an article as written, but not so obviously impossible to warrant immediate deletion. If this needs to rot in Draft space for 6 months, then so be it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 16:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D, well said! Particularly liked your last sentence. -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|
(Sidebar: I assume we can still ping IP editors by using their IPv4/IPv6 IP address?) -- Doug Mehus T· C 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|
- Delete. Looks promotional to me. Deb ( talk) 16:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Includes some promotion, but also some apparently factual content, and editing might well result in a valid article. If claims are supported by sources, this person is probably notable. I do have to wonder how reliable some of the sources are, and some clearly should be removed, such as the Amazon citation. Many podcasts are not reliable, but some are. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 17:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Drafts are not required to meet notability guidelines. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Not hopelessly promotional, and could become a serviceable article with some rewriting if the subject is notable. If he's not, the draft will most likely be abandoned, after which it can be deleted via G13 (already linked above). Glades12 ( talk) 21:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I checked the article and I agree with most of the editors here - the draft, given a chance to be re-written properly with the proper links for citations, may result in a fairly valid article. Also I want to comment on unusual activity of the JonathanX0X0 - I noticed on his page that he was accused of being a paid editor and most of his contributions confirm it. Therefore, I have a legitimate question, why would a paid editor nominate the draft (that may stay on Wikipedia for 6 months) for deletion? This looks very unusual and I would double check the user's credibility and his ability to contribute Wikipedia in a positive way. -- 199.79.46.44 ( talk) 23:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "very unusual," and, secondarily, can IP editors bring editors to
WP:ANI for
WP:COI?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
23:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Dmehus: There is no policy or guideline preventing a report by any editor registered or not from filing a report on any other editor on ANI. I have myself with reluctance filed ANI reports on users. The fact that anyone can file a report on anyone else is not seen as a negative because if it weren't for WP:BOOMERANGs, there would be a lot of problem editors that got missed. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 23:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on what you mean by "very unusual," and, secondarily, can IP editors bring editors to
WP:ANI for
WP:COI?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
23:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Trying to smear a good faith user by implying that they are COI / paid editors is not cool without rationales. Michepman ( talk) 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman Your !vote contradicts your rationale. There was absolutely no attempt to "smear," the creator of this draft as having a COI or paid editing conflict. Neither those that responded, nor the nom, did any such the thing. The above exchange with the IP editor is just in reference to the IP editor's examinations of the nom's contributions, but they made no such allegations. Hope that clarifies.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus - Maybe I am reading that comment wrong, but the commenter a few rows above mine appears to claim that the nominator is a paid editor and makes a jibe at their 'credibility' and their 'ability to contribute [positively]'. I don't think that's something that we should be doing at
WP:AFD. It's mean-spirited and out of place unless the argument is that the nominator is breaking the rules by nominating or that their actions are out of process. (And if that is the claim, it should be sourced properly so that others can understand). If that's not what is happening here, then I apologize, but that's how I see it and I don't yet see another explanation for why those remarks are made.
Michepman (
talk)
15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman I agree that it was unnecessary to be included here, but I don't think it was necessarily mean-spirited if they've done their research into the nom's contributions. I haven't looked too deeply enough to know definitively. Nevertheless, I would've preferred the IP editor take the nom to a conduct forum, such as
ANI, which they (or another IP editor) has now done. (I noted, though, they neglected to notify the nom on his talkpage, so it'll probably be archived or closed without action.)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus, fun fact to add in this conversation that I'm about to block the creator of this article as a likely paid editor who has not disclosed their employer.
Drmies (
talk)
00:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, thanks for the follow-up. I hadn't look into the nominator as in-depth as the IP editor(s) above and Prax, but from following the various talkpages, I didn't find it odd that, when queried, the editor chose simply not to respond when warned and advised not to edit until they had responded to the charges of paid editing/COI. I was just trying to assume good faith in this conversation and keep it to the subject of this MfD, but there were some odd edits in the nom's contributions, to be sure. Doug Mehus T· C 00:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Drmies, let me correct you.
JonathanX0X0 is not a creator of the article (it also seems illogical that the creator would nominate his own draft for deletion instead of deleting it) - the recently blocked user is a person who nominated the draft for deletion for whatever reason.
2601:1C0:CB01:2660:F866:89C6:DA79:BD28 (
talk)
00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ha, that's funny. Sorry for the confusion. At least I blocked the right person--so this was one of those cases where you had a spamming editor working up their credentials by nominating other spammy articles... It takes one to know one.
Drmies (
talk)
00:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Drmies Yeah, no kidding. No worries. It could be that, or I was initially wondering, before I looked who created the article at least, if the editor had potentially created this article, then nominated it, knowing our policies for Draft: space in order to justify a "keep"
consensus for his or her article. It probably sounds a bit off the wall, but I suspect even that is something you've encountered once or twice?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
00:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dmehus, that is not an unlikely scenario, and I've wondered a bit about related matters--like, Draft space being sort of a safe zone. I think someone up here said "can't delete drafts", and I think that's problematic, but I also have to tell you that (as an old-timer) I don't have that much experience with draft space. If I run into it, it's by accident. Drmies ( talk) 18:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Drmies Yeah, no kidding. No worries. It could be that, or I was initially wondering, before I looked who created the article at least, if the editor had potentially created this article, then nominated it, knowing our policies for Draft: space in order to justify a "keep"
consensus for his or her article. It probably sounds a bit off the wall, but I suspect even that is something you've encountered once or twice?
Doug Mehus
T·
C
00:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ha, that's funny. Sorry for the confusion. At least I blocked the right person--so this was one of those cases where you had a spamming editor working up their credentials by nominating other spammy articles... It takes one to know one.
Drmies (
talk)
00:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus, fun fact to add in this conversation that I'm about to block the creator of this article as a likely paid editor who has not disclosed their employer.
Drmies (
talk)
00:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman I agree that it was unnecessary to be included here, but I don't think it was necessarily mean-spirited if they've done their research into the nom's contributions. I haven't looked too deeply enough to know definitively. Nevertheless, I would've preferred the IP editor take the nom to a conduct forum, such as
ANI, which they (or another IP editor) has now done. (I noted, though, they neglected to notify the nom on his talkpage, so it'll probably be archived or closed without action.)
Doug Mehus
T·
C
15:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Dmehus - Maybe I am reading that comment wrong, but the commenter a few rows above mine appears to claim that the nominator is a paid editor and makes a jibe at their 'credibility' and their 'ability to contribute [positively]'. I don't think that's something that we should be doing at
WP:AFD. It's mean-spirited and out of place unless the argument is that the nominator is breaking the rules by nominating or that their actions are out of process. (And if that is the claim, it should be sourced properly so that others can understand). If that's not what is happening here, then I apologize, but that's how I see it and I don't yet see another explanation for why those remarks are made.
Michepman (
talk)
15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
-
Michepman Your !vote contradicts your rationale. There was absolutely no attempt to "smear," the creator of this draft as having a COI or paid editing conflict. Neither those that responded, nor the nom, did any such the thing. The above exchange with the IP editor is just in reference to the IP editor's examinations of the nom's contributions, but they made no such allegations. Hope that clarifies.
Doug Mehus
T·
C
03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)