- 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: keep . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Jessicakrzywicki/Camera (band)
Another band page hosted in userspace Legacypac ( talk) 03:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Very old. No good sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)- Keep Neither "old" nor lack of sources is a valid reason for deleting a userspace draft. If a WP:BEFORE quality search has been done, and an editor can give assurance that there is good reason to think that no sources exist that might plausibly amount to notability, that might be a different thing. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 02:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- A very quik google search finds such sources as:
- That is enough to preserve a userspace draft, in my view. Indeed it might well be enough to establish notability at an AfD, if tose sources were incorporated, and the result moved to mainspace -- not that I am suggesting that. Perhaps a move to draft space would be proper. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 03:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- There seems to be some oddities in the history here. A different version was created in mainspace, and apparently deleted by PROD.
User:Jessicakrzywicki seems to have edited and perhaps created that version. The history of this page shows it being created by
CameraBand. Perhaps there was a user name change.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 03:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I had more trouble, "camera" and the band member's names were more trouble for my searches. You have shown sources that clearly verify the band. I think the band is no longer active? If not, there is not much cause to argue violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION, so it doesn't even call to be blanked. Is the draft better than
Camera (band) was in 2011? Should we contest the PROD? There are a number of bands that sound similar, such as
In Camera (band). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It looks fairly similar, I haven't done a detailed comparison. It was edited by both
User:Jessicakrzywicki and
User:CameraBand, as well as a number of editors I recognize as regulars. Both list the band as still active in 2009/2010. i don't know if it is still active or not, probably not as i found no recent mentions in my search.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 04:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably the band was active when a user using the band name started a page. The band website has been re-purposed in Japanese. There myspace page still exists. The label page exists, but the latest posts are years old. A defunct band is unlikely to increase in fame.
Legacypac (
talk) 05:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- True, but none of that is a reason to delete in
draftuser space. Defunct things sometimes are rediscovered and increase in fame, but in this case it is at least on the borderline of being notable as it stands, with no increase. No valid reason to delete has been mentioned. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 05:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)- It's been siting since 2010. The COI creator has had 7 years to bring it up to standard. If it is good enough or almost good enough for mainspace, fix and promote it. If it is not mainspace suitable, it is a
WP:NOTAWEBHOST U5 candidate. If this was the workup for the deleted mainspace page, it should have been moved and redirected back in 2010 and than would have been deleted as dependent on the deleted page.
Legacypac (
talk) 05:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- There are no time limits. The page is definitely not in scope for U5, as it is clearly intended as a draft article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Being old, or even "stale", in no way makes a page eligible for U5 if it wasn't eligable the day of its latest edit. This celarly isn't a U5. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 06:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's been siting since 2010. The COI creator has had 7 years to bring it up to standard. If it is good enough or almost good enough for mainspace, fix and promote it. If it is not mainspace suitable, it is a
WP:NOTAWEBHOST U5 candidate. If this was the workup for the deleted mainspace page, it should have been moved and redirected back in 2010 and than would have been deleted as dependent on the deleted page.
Legacypac (
talk) 05:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- True, but none of that is a reason to delete in
- Presumably the band was active when a user using the band name started a page. The band website has been re-purposed in Japanese. There myspace page still exists. The label page exists, but the latest posts are years old. A defunct band is unlikely to increase in fame.
Legacypac (
talk) 05:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- It looks fairly similar, I haven't done a detailed comparison. It was edited by both
User:Jessicakrzywicki and
User:CameraBand, as well as a number of editors I recognize as regulars. Both list the band as still active in 2009/2010. i don't know if it is still active or not, probably not as i found no recent mentions in my search.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 04:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I had more trouble, "camera" and the band member's names were more trouble for my searches. You have shown sources that clearly verify the band. I think the band is no longer active? If not, there is not much cause to argue violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION, so it doesn't even call to be blanked. Is the draft better than
Camera (band) was in 2011? Should we contest the PROD? There are a number of bands that sound similar, such as
In Camera (band). --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 03:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per DESiegel's research. — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 05:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep no evidence provided of WP:NOTWEBHOST violation provided in nom. There is no blanket ban on drafts about bands. VQuakr ( talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- See [[[WP:NOTAWEBHOST]]
Legacypac (
talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- A legitimate draft is not a NOWEBHOST violation.
Legacypac, you seem to want to follow a law of the excluded middle with regard to drafts: either they are good enough for mainspace and should be moved there, or else they ae WEBHOST violations, and so should be deleted. There is a large class of drafts for which neither is true. Not currently good enough for mainspace, and would quite likely be speedy deleted there, or else deleted by an AfD, but not webhost violations either. Remember that
WP:NOTAWEBHOST says
The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.
and WP:CSD#U5 saysPages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals ... with the exception of plausible drafts...
. A draft can be a "foundation for effective collaboration". It is fundamentally "closely related to Wikipedia's goals". It should not be deleted unless there is some particular policy-based reason, beyond "staleness" either in terms of age or of lack of recent edits. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 01:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- A legitimate draft is not a NOWEBHOST violation.
Legacypac, you seem to want to follow a law of the excluded middle with regard to drafts: either they are good enough for mainspace and should be moved there, or else they ae WEBHOST violations, and so should be deleted. There is a large class of drafts for which neither is true. Not currently good enough for mainspace, and would quite likely be speedy deleted there, or else deleted by an AfD, but not webhost violations either. Remember that
WP:NOTAWEBHOST says
- 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.