Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Manchala Yaswanth
- 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. ✗plicit 03:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
We are doing harm to let undergraduates embarrass themselves by trying to make wp pages for themselves. We should either remove on sight, or move it to a user page. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete If the user wants to add to their own userpage that is one thing, but it is not up to userfy though. Polyamorph (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: As an unsourced BLP, the easy criteria that covers these things among others. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I think that would be a very good solution, and I wish I had thought of it, but that's not a speedy criterion and BLPPROD applies only in article space. I'm not sure we would want to propose extending it to draft, any more than A1 or A3, for there are many incomplete drafts where the user has't gotten to it yet, some of them usable partial copies from other WPs/ This is another of my attempts to find some way of handling these. DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- User:DGG, I am quite sure it is a good idea. See WT:BLPPROD#BLPPROD in DraftSpace. People are not all convinced, so I am on a drive to demonstrate it is objective and always results in deletion. Every time I see an unsourced BLP, from draftspace, I !vote “Delete as an unsourced BLP”. At MfD, that means it has 7 days to acquire a reliable source, and if that happens I withdraw my !vote (that has happened once).
- This is not happening enough to justify the policy extension of BLPPROD, but it is a good catchall for so many draft dumps that should be deleted. Eg personal self-promotion, kids writing about other kids, random made up stuff involving people.
- “Unsourced BLP” can just be accepted as an excellent reason for deletion.
- In this case, it is a driveby CV drop, but that doesn’t need mention because it is already deletable as an unsourced BLP.
- I note that WP:BLP applies to all pages in all namespaces, and no one argues to “keep” an unsourced BLP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Unsourced BLP" is an excellent reason for deletion , here at MfD. The questions is whether it should have a simpler process, like speedy or prod. I have in fact once in a while simply speedy deleted as BLP when there's something i think potentially harmful that doesn't reach G10, but strictly speaking, it's out of process. Our BLP policies pose a three-way dilemma between the risk of calling undue attention, the damage from not removing quickly enough when uncontroversial, and the danger from people using it for facts or people they dislike. It has been quite difficult to find clear wording that covers the range of situations. Other views fro mregularreviewers would be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the meantime, “unsourced BLP” at MfD will suffice for a lot. BLPDELETE, aka G10, is poorly documented but I think is properly used for deleting BLP sensitive, including children’s’ identifying information, even if they have posted the same information on YouTube.
- Because “unsourced BLP” covers so much, such as the new graduate CV spam, children posting information about other children, and disguised attack pages, I think it is good for not calling undue attention.
- Where something is more sensitive, I think it is best to go straight to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
- Where the NOTWEBHOST time wasting junk does not relate to a living person, I don’t see a lot of cases that require deletion ahead of G13. Recent and current case include “alternate history”. Non-contributors WEBHOSTING in draftspace seems rare (necessary WEBHOSTING evidence includes pageviews). Otherwise, G13 suffices. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Unsourced BLP" is an excellent reason for deletion , here at MfD. The questions is whether it should have a simpler process, like speedy or prod. I have in fact once in a while simply speedy deleted as BLP when there's something i think potentially harmful that doesn't reach G10, but strictly speaking, it's out of process. Our BLP policies pose a three-way dilemma between the risk of calling undue attention, the damage from not removing quickly enough when uncontroversial, and the danger from people using it for facts or people they dislike. It has been quite difficult to find clear wording that covers the range of situations. Other views fro mregularreviewers would be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- SmokeyJoe, I think that would be a very good solution, and I wish I had thought of it, but that's not a speedy criterion and BLPPROD applies only in article space. I'm not sure we would want to propose extending it to draft, any more than A1 or A3, for there are many incomplete drafts where the user has't gotten to it yet, some of them usable partial copies from other WPs/ This is another of my attempts to find some way of handling these. DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons specified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (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.