Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jon Roland

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. Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jon Roland[edit]

Apparent recreation of a 2006 AFDed article which was G4ed and G11ed once each and subsequently protected from creation. Last edit was in 2007. Not 100% sure it qualifies for a promotional CSD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation? But an admin needs to check if it's the same. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons for deleting this article from articlespace do not apply to this userpage in userspace. "WP:COI, article was created by the subject of the article; no assertion of notability, no sources other than the subject's own websites; and the article is about a failed third party candidate from an already-concluded election." Userpages are normally created by their own subjects, they are not required to assert notability, and they are not expected to have sources. Thus, the deletion of similar content at AfD is irrelevant to whether the user is allowed to write about himself on a userpage. If there are concerns about promotional content, they can be resolved just by removing the external links. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G4 says that such re-creations in user space are only permitted for explicit improvement to the article. Being unable to see the deleted article, I can't tell you if that's the case or not. That's why I threw the tag on there, so an admin could have a look and see. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CSD#G4 states that a page can be deleted under G4 if it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." The reasons given for deletion of the page at AfD don't apply to this same content in userspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You just quoted what I intended to quote - "but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy." That is, if it is moved to user space only to get around deletion policy, it does qualify as G4. (Reason for deletion no longer applies would be if an unknown actor became famous later, for example.) So, if there has been no improvement and no effort at improvement, then it is only here to circumvent deletion policy and explicitly qualifies for speedy deletion. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If not a re-creation, it is absolutely deletable as a stale draft, BTW. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stale autobiography previously deleted for notability concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2013 (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.