Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Harling Bassukarno
- 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Basically, advertising. But, not quite bad enough for WP:G11. This was created by a now-blocked (and globally locked) sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mural19, but the creation predates the block date, so WP:G5 doesn't apply. This was also deleted from mainspace via AfD, but predates the AfD, so WP:G4 doesn't apply. Part of a walled garden from the same sock farm. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Leave for G13. If not bad enough for G11, then it is not bad enough to ignore while the G13 process deals with it. Using MfD to shortcut the process makes for busywork. If sock-blocked user subpages should be delete, establish that as policy. G13 will deal with the endless number of pages like this. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Persuaded by others, and on looking further, that this is promotion with zero chance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Utterly non-notable vanity page, and the history of socking suggests that G13 might not be effective here. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with User:SpicyMilkBoy that the history of socking should be taken into account, and so respectfully disagree with User:SmokeyJoe on this draft and some others. G13 is for good-faith drafts, and sockpuppetry is a form of bad-faith editing that must be explicitly addressed. Sometimes the record of the deletion is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah maybe you’re right. It is very close to G11-eligible, to be sure I would want to check that the sources/external links are utterly worthless, and they are not loading for me. Google is telling me that he and his company are not notable, although I like to try to go easy on Countries like Indonesia where online sources are harder to come by. On whether the history of the socking and number of vanity pages is a reason to delete the products of the sock-user, I think that should be thrown to SPI for comment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- The account is indefinitely blocked with TPA and email disabled on Indonesian Wikipedia, and blocked on 2 other Indonesian projects as a spambot, [1] so I would assume that he's no more notable in Indonesia than in the English-speaking world. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah maybe you’re right. It is very close to G11-eligible, to be sure I would want to check that the sources/external links are utterly worthless, and they are not loading for me. Google is telling me that he and his company are not notable, although I like to try to go easy on Countries like Indonesia where online sources are harder to come by. On whether the history of the socking and number of vanity pages is a reason to delete the products of the sock-user, I think that should be thrown to SPI for comment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Some people simply list borderline G11-eligible as G11, but it's good practice to bring it here to avoid error. And ad promotional content should not be in any part of Wikipedia , I don't think we should generally wait for 6 months unless there's a real prospect of developing into an acceptable article. I disagree with SmokeyJoe, I think it's keeping hopeless drafts around that adds to the work, for they will need to be repeatedly looked at. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Some people simply list borderline G11-eligible as G11. Indeed. And they are usually deleted, quickly. This laxity May be reviewed here. The borderline of G11 is not well defined. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.