Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ABG1997

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 speedy deleted Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:ABG1997

Copy of a now salted, repeatedly recreated autobiographical article (Alex Brown Garcia). Delete per WP:UP#COPIES. This user page has been blanked as a courtesy due to containing personal details of a minor. User has not responded to previous requests to remove the content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional article on a non-notable person, which was userfied when perhaps it should have been deleted. The article has been created at least nine times as an article under different titles, plus several copies in user pages and talk pages, and salted under at least two different titles. The user has repeatedly used sockpuppets to evade blocks: at least three of this user's accounts are currently indefinitely blocked. Both the pages listed above are currently blanked except for MfD and sockpuppet notices, but both of them contain in their edit histories not only unacceptable promotional material, but also personal information about a minor, and so should be deleted and recreated with just the sockpuppet notices. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete due to clear G1, G2, G5, G11, (possibly A1), A7 and A10 WP:CSD being met Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's borderline for G11 (promotion), but none of the others can possibly be considered to apply. It is certainly not by any stretch of the imagination G1 (nonsense): it is perfectly coherent and meaningful. It is not G2 (a test page) but an attempt to create an article, which I have no doubt was intended to stay. It is not G5 (created by a blocked user), because there was no active block on the original account at the times when the pages were created. None of the A criteria can be remotely considered, as the pages are not articles (even though one of them was originally created as an article, but then userfied). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as clearly this is a case where WP:IAR can (and should) apply. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted noticed that JamesBWatson deleted and restored, although G5 may not be technically correct, but IAR will do it as we don't need a log entry to undo the benefit of deleting it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2011 (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.