Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Philip Cross (Wikipedia Editor)

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 per WP:SNOW $Salvio giuliano$ 19:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Philip Cross (Wikipedia Editor)

I wasn't aware of this editor and the media coverage he received in 2018 for his editing focus until I did a CSD G13 deletion of this draft yesterday. I thought that was the end of it. But then an IP editor immediately went to REFUND today to ask that the draft be restored so I thought I would bring it to MFD to start a discussion on the appropriateness of having draft articles on our fellow unidentified editors. We do have List of Wikipedia people for individuals who edit the project and become notable, however I'm doubtful that it is wise to have articles written about anonymous editors even if their activity is covered by mainstream media. While I have doubts that this draft would ever get approved and moved to main space, I'm proposing that this draft get deleted to set an informal precedence against articles on anonymous editors, especially ones that don't receive lasting media coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were in user space I would delete it as a WP:POLEMIC violation. Dressing it up as a potential article makes the bureaucracy more difficult but the outcome should be the same. It is true that the subject has been accused of various wikicrimes, but dozens of others share that distinction (check WP:ARC for examples). Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of deletion, but your ending argument is weak. How many other wikicriminals have had their activities covered by multiple independent sources? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1. A negative BLP. 2. Wikipedia-Notability can’t be satisfied by by events on Wikipedia. Sources that demonstrate notability have to be independent of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm in favor of deletion, your second statement isn't entirely relevant. The sources used (bar one to quote the ArbCom) to show notability are all independent of Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All six sources fail strict independence due to being about something to do with Wikipedia. The tougher test of strict independence is appropriate when double-checking for a justification for the keeping of a negative BLP. The subject here does not meet that test. Internally, userspace or project space, this would be deleted as a list of negatives about an editor, but by drafting for mainspace the author seeks to justify it by external interest. The sources demonstrate external interest, but the external interest is limited to the subjects Wikipedia activities, which will only amount to a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia, which I judge “not good enough”. “The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward not inward at the Wikipedia itself”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (re) deletion under G13, as G13 allows easy undeletion. This page should not be undeleted to draftspace or to userspace, or to any place on Wikipedia. Any notes should be restricted, such as ArbCom archives, or as judged by User:Tamzin, the admin who blocked Philip Cross (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While BIO1E doesn't automatically mean delete, it does mean we have to stop and analyze the notability and magnitude of the event and the person's role in that event. Cross's role in that event was definitely significant, the only major news site referenced talks about another player in the controversy in the headline, and not Cross.I'm of the mind to say the event was more significant than the player. Perhaps there should be an article on the event, but this piece should go. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this would not have come to MfD if not for the undeletion requested by the IP. I don't see a connection between the IP and the subject, and the IP requesting for its undeletion may be coincidental. The IP was on an undeletion request spree, and requested for restoration of another 4 (unrelated) drafts. The sequence is Draft:List of airports in Easter Island (06:09), Draft:Abin Antony (09:48), Draft:CodeEdit (12:59), Draft:Mufti Salman Azhari (13:00) and Draft:Philip Cross (Wikipedia Editor) 13:01. Philip Cross was deleted at 07:53 after the IP started requesting, so the nomination statement of an IP editor immediately went to REFUND today will have to be re-looked in this context. I don't know if the IP is planning to work on all of them, or if the undeleting admin UtherSRG expected him to, before restoring 3 of them, but the IP's talk page has concerns of block evasion and multiple accounts abuse. I would suggest to re-delete under G13 the restored pages, and not per the nomination rationale. Jay 💬 12:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G13 as we would have done anyway regardless of the IP intervention.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything having to do with Liz's often nonsensical deletion sprees deserves a second look. However, I just read a piece of content which further proves that WP:INDISCRIMINATE should really refer to "an indiscriminate collection of sources" instead of "an indiscriminate collection of information". There are members of this community who believe that a dumping ground for citations with no context is acceptable. I'm not one of those people. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck does this mean, RadioKAOS? I don't delete random pages or go on "nonsensical deletion sprees". This draft was due to be deleted as a regular CSD G13 and I spend a lot of time taking care of expiring drafts. If you disagree with G13 deletion (and a fair number of editors do), then go discuss it at WP:CSD, don't blame the admin who is just following the guidelines set out for us to follow. Bizarre that there are a valid concerns raised here about having articles written about our fellow editors and you take an opportunity to take a swipe at me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:RadioKAOS#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per UtherSRG. I remember this incident. There isn't enough to this event to have a whole article devoted to it. —Alalch E. 16:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per assessment of others. It doesn't seem like this person is notable and we should not have a Wikipedia article about them. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spedy delete per WP:G10 and salt per the IP's apparent insistence on the draft being preserved. This is a polemic attack page about a named living person who is barely notable for inside baseball Wikipedia stuff, and the draft doesn't make any attempt whatsoever to be anything resembling a proper biography. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the statements that the subject is not notable are irrelevant. Drafts are not deleted for notability reasons, but attack pages are deleted from any namespace. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2023 (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.