Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Johnson-Smith House

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 Move to article, no redirect. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Candleabracadabra/Johnson-Smith House

Created, and mosr of the editing done by, an aparent sock of User:ChildofMidnight (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive#14 April 2014). I'm not sure tat no other users have edited this enough to prevent it from being a G5 case, but it should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace. It seems a perfectly acceptable article. If ayou want me to edit it and therefore adopt it, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The circumstances behind this one are a bit strange. ChildofMidnight's site ban expired before the article was created, and he was never topic-banned from creating articles in mainspace, so I'm not sure if it's actually a G5 case. It was originally in mainspace, but User:Nyttend moved it into userspace after Candleabracadabra was blocked, with the comment "Not even close to being ready for mainspace" (which seems to be debatable). I'm not impressed with the quality of the article, but it's a valid topic, and I can't really see a reason not to put it back in mainspace if it's not a G5 case. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone wants to convert it into a proper article before the MFD finishes. The things keeping it from a G5 deletion are TheCatalyst's addition of an infobox and Pietro's addition of an image. CoM had already violated his ban extensively by this time (note that he was even banned from notes on people's talk pages, and he'd done that numerous times), and he would have been reblocked indefinitely had we known that this account was his sock. This article was created simply to produce a bluelink, regardless of the gibberish text: It is a late 19th century two-story Folk Victorian architecture residence (c. 1892). appearance is junk. If you want to have a decent article, or even an informative stub, you'll have to trash everything that's here and start all over, so there's no reason to retain what's here. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move per DGG. There isn't much we could do the article beyond a small re-write here and there and it does pass notability guidelines as a historical landmark on the National Registry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (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.