Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarus zufar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scarus zufar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page created by sockpuppet of blocked user Amanda Smalls, but has edits by others, thus not meeting criterion G5. Gparyani (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Article meets core guidelines for verifiability, sourcing, etc. and thus keeping it serves Wikipedia better than deleting it. The creator has been blocked after their self-reporting. (Note for transparency: the nom has tagged the article previously for speedy deletion (G6, U2 and then G5), and each was declined by an admin -- the last time by me.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first nomination (G6) was because the article had been copy-pasted into article space from the sock's sandbox, and the second (U2) was because an admin had mistakenly moved the sandbox to User:Scarus zufar instead of to article space (that move was quickly fixed). The third one (G5) was after the self-admission of the sock as being a sock, and at the time only the sock had made major edits to the article. However, you had declined my speedy and made other substantial edits to it, thus making it ineligible for G5. This is therefore an edge case, so that's why I brought it to AfD. Gparyani (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CactusWriter and WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Deleting an article created by a banned or blocked editor and then improved by others makes no sense. Keeping it is not an endorsement of the sockpuppet's activity. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the original creator was a sockpuppeteer doesn't mean we immediately delete all their contributions. The article is perfectly fine regardless of how it got created. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:29, 15 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.