Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Copperbottom82/The Palpitations

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 for now; it is a bit quick for a WP:STALEDRAFT deletion. A renomination after several months of inactivity would probably be perceived differently. --RL0919 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Copperbottom82/The Palpitations

Interesting user page that was recently moved to a user subpage. User created their account January 16, 2011 and created their use page - a band page really. The odd thing is it was just moved to a subage as "Draft article on user page, moving to subpage" However the creator (User:Copperbottom82) had/has done nothing at Wikipedia other than create their account and this userpage on January 16, 2011. Probably should have been deleted as G11 given the creators history (or lack of it), but because it is now in user subspace as a "draft article" it is being sent here. Note this band is also "unsigned" - there is no indication this was ever meant to be anything other than what is was: a user who was here to promote their band or their friends band in violation of several Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not content categories (Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia is not a personal web host to name two) Prior to todays move it clearly failed the Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages userpage guideline as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I moved the proto-article due to an announcment at WP:AN. It is likely that WP:BAND is not fulfilled at the time. However, I see no reason why this editor shouldn't be allowed to continue to work on the proto-article. Doing this will give him/her experience in learning how to edit Wikipedia, including how to cite info etc. Many user have sub-pages with articles under development. It is likely that a number of bands have similar pages. Once the band becomes Wikinotable enough, then the article will be ready to move into mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply: From what you said I can see an editor posted here that it was an "out of scope userpage", which is more of a Wikimedia Commons term, but at Wikipedia it falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If this were a clear work in progress from an active editor it would be one thing, however at this point this is an unsigned local band where there is no indication the editor who created it is anything more than an SPA who came here to promote the band. That fact aside, is response to your comment that "Once the band becomes Wikinotable enough" the article will be fine: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball that can predict that someday something may become notable and as such it is generally not ok to indefinitely host such an article in hopes that someday the subject might become notable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply IMHO, this MfD is a little bit bitey. We've got a new editor who has started an article. The use of a "references" section shows that they want to create a reasonable article, even if they haven't got as far as actually adding any refs yet. It also shows that they have some understanding of WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:CITE. A month or so without editing isn't really that long. If deleted, I for one would be ameniable to a request for restoration if this editor wished to continue working on it. If kept and not worked on in, say, 6 months, then I'd be more amenable to deletion, but again without prejudice to recreation. Bands are tricky to deal with, which is why WP:BAND exists, but every now and then, a new band will break through. Occasionally, that band will have a fan who is also a Wikipedian, hence the existence of proto-articles such as this. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You need to take this in two steps - Step 1 is they created an account and a few hours later created an article on their user page and than vanished. Step 2 is someone appears to have misplaced a nom for deletion and placed it at AN and it was at that point Step 2 came into play - moving it to a subpage. In order to look at Step 2 you need to go back and look at Step 1. If Step 1 had proven the user had been actively editing and contributing to the project in some way *other than* an article on a local unsigned band than Step 2 might seemed justified, especially had it been the actual user who had asked "I need to find out how to move my misplaced work-page to the sandbox" and not another editor who said it was "out of scope", implying it was not meeting policy and/or deletable. The issue at hand is not if the articles subject is "notable" but rather if Step 1 is valid or not, and, after that is established, does the reason you stated for moving it (They could be notable someday for some reason) lead to the obvious question - is it now just useing Wikipedia to "indefinitely host" an article based on a magic crystal ball, which Wikipedia is not. The burden of proof is on you to establish that this did not violate any policy prior to the move and that your move is because you have sources that will establish this band as notable and allow this to be a valid mainspace article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've notified the editor who originally posted to AN of this MfD discussion. Suggest we both now withdraw from the discussion and allow other editors to have a say. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. The user has done nothing outside of make this page and that was well over a month ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Non-notable myspace band. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - Per WP:FAKEARTICLE, ^{"Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template {{userspace draft}} can be added to the top of the page to identify these)."} I would say that this is not for "long-term archival purposes", and is "Short term hosting of a potentially valid article". If it had been a year, I would say yes, the user is no longer editing it, and it isn't notable, so it should be deleted. But, this was just over a month ago, and the user may have more to add to it later. It should probably be removed from the "2000s music groups" category and have a draft template posted on it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the template, and put a : in front of the Category so that it convert the cat into a wl. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You feel that this is not for "long-term archival purposes" however in the context of what this is and why it was moved (for test edits and the assumption that someday they might become notable) how would this *not* be seen as "indefinitely" or "long-term" storage or free hosting? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so articles (or even potential articles) based solely on opinions that "well, someday...maybe..." without anything more aren't normally allowed. Also, good find about the "2000s music groups" category, that should not even be there. My main concern however is still if the right motivation was in play when this was created as a main userpage. That too is a large part of the nom. Would I like to be proven wrong? Yes, but that would entail the editor coming back in full swing and working throughout the project, not only on this band (or things related to this band) Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "long term" because it has only been a month and a half. That is nowhere near long term. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think you may have misunderstood - this is not a nom based on how long it has existed. It is a two part nom - one is was it done with the "right motivation"? The only real person who can answer that is the creator, who has not done anything else since the day they registered and created this article as their main userpage. That is very important to look at and consider. The second part is *why* it was relocated and the last part is to consider the "why" and if that is in line with what Wikipedia is. (Or, rather, What Wikipedia is not) How long it has existed in *not* the reason for the nom. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Created on 16 January 2011, this page does not violate WP:STALEDRAFT yet. The page contains very little content and has no promotional language, indicating that the creator might not have a conflict of interest with the band (and instead could just be a fan). I searched for sources and found this article from scoreboard.com published on 22 February 2011. The article states (mine emphasized):
Having already had features on Channel 4, E4 and Radio 2, championed by DJs Andy Weatherall on BBC6 and Chris Martin formerly of NME Radio, Fred Perry’s subculture website and Who’s Jack Magazine, and shared stages with the likes of British Sea Power, Ramona, Doll & The Kicks and The Brute Chorus as well as label mates Islington Boys’ Club and Arrows of Love. The Palpitations are definitely a band on the rise.
The scoreboard.com article, which may or may not be a reliable source, indicates that the band has received coverage in other secondary sources. If the non-print reliable sources mentioned above can be found and cited, there may be enough here to write an article that passes the general notability guidelines. I believe that because the article is not promotional, and because it is potentially notable, it should be given a few more months (perhaps six months from the date of its creation). If the creator has not resurfaced to work on the article, it can be deleted after 16 July 2011. Cunard (talk) 11:16, 9 March 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.